i'm totally diggin' this series on the reformation. this channel needs to be discovered by people who enjoy history, the content is stellar! -thank you for all you do.
Thank you so much for your efforts and labor in bringing history to us. Ran across your videos listening to another history channel. Your shows are awesome Plan to listen to all.
Thank you for yet another deeply researched and detailed analysis. I would like to offer a theory of my own. Martin Luther was active within the Holy Roman Empire, he had a poferful supporter and sponsor in Prince Elector of Saxony, but he, in a way, also kept him in check. The Swiss Confederacy was never a part of the Holy Roman Empire, therefore there was a certain political dimension missing there, which allowed people like Calvin to run riot in cities which weren't under feudal control but weren't as well connected or politically astute as the Hanseatic League of the North.
@@piushalg5041 I'm not familiar about formally part of the German empire. In all my research on Jean Cauvin man in Geneva, which sucked in other nearby cities at times, the attachment must have been on the casual side. Attached loosely by language and custom and trade. One trend I noticed as Cauvin's reign progressed to the abyss, is even the closest cities were keeping Cauvin's Geneva at arms length. Example, refusing to extradite innocent people to Cauvin so he could hang/burn them on trumped up charges which had the death penalty. And that was Cauvin's #1 fanboy and obedient student and servant. With "friends" like that who needs the pope or archbishops as enemies??
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 All you need is to consult a historical atlas which shows the boundaries of the empire over time. Fact is that the power of the emperor had greatly diminished over time and the principalities and city states had become very autonomous. The Swiss even fought a war against the emperor in 1499 because the wanted tax exemption and exemption of Imperial jurisdiction. They won.
After literally months and months of studying Calvinism I have come to the conclusion that their view of the character of Christ is entirely different than mainstream Christianity. In my wildest dreams I never knew after serving the Lord for over 38 years that there was a group of people out there claiming to be Christians who literally believe that man can choose anything except Jesus, that Jesus does not love everyone (salvation love), that Jesus did not die for everyone, and that God does not want everyone saved. Can someone PLEASE explain how these people are truly brothers and sisters in Christ since their view of Christ is so contrary to clear biblical teaching? I just cannot wrap my brain around this.
Because Christianity was completely made up by Rome. Christ was not real. Literally zero evidence. Rome tried to give the jews their messiah and their new temple so they could end the wars and create a passafist subservient religion. Don't you ever wonder why "god" is so different in the new testament? No more genocidal racist land theft of the old testament. All of a sudden he's a god of love and peace.. cmone man. Why do you think Christianity has the most protestant denominations of any religion ever devised? Written real world history not not support any of the Bible and neither does archeological evidence. How do you as a Christian reconcile the atrocities of the abrahimic god? We don't believe in zues and horus anymore. It's time humanity stops believing in the abrahimic god mythology as well.
I’m not really a practicing Christian these days but I believe strongly in the basic tenets and have to completely agree with you. I don’t see at all how following Calvinism fits into Christianity as a whole….to me it seems like a “how to start a cult” starter kit
The short answer is that they believed in Jesus and went through the motions thereof. Everything else is "humans being humans," depending on who you ask. Christians believing in Christ doesn't make them good people, good Christians, or moral, Calvinists or otherwise. Were they Christians even if they implemented an objectively horrible practice of their faith? Absolutely. Christians are still sinners and are more than capable of atrocities, even in the name of their faith.
I think you have a bit of a skewed view of your religion. There are some 30,000 different sects of Christianity, all varying across a wide spectrum of beliefs about specific issues. If you're on one fringe, I can understand you feeling disconnected from another fringe. But in terms of the fundamental approach to the world, it all looks basically the same to an outsider, just shades of grey. To understand this, I think it's important to ask yourself: all those ancient laws and stories that your own sect ignores... why exactly do you ignore those specific ones, but not others? Because they're cruel, or nonsensical, or no longer apply in the modern world? How prescriptive are the words in the Bible to you, exactly? If I believed in a god, AND if I believed that the words in the Bible were those of my god, then Calvin's way is probably close to how I'd approach it. I think that's the key, the reliance on the written word as the primary medium of information transfer, versus the use of spoken word, customs and rituals, or art and architecture. The OT says to kill disobedient children; well, if that's really God's will, then who am I to deny it? That kid who hit his parents should lose his head. If you place less emphasis on the text and more on other things, then you can come to other conclusions. But it's still the same core belief. (You don't have to feel fraternity though, in the same way that a dog and a coyote won't always get along... they look similar from the outside, but have some key differences too.)
John Calvin “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” wow I never knew what a 💩 this guy was!!! Really had a strong reaction to this one. Great series, enjoying it very much so far
After spending several years digging for objective contemporary information on how Jean Cauvin (his real French name) and hundreds of hours reading documents, etc., I could go for hours on the works of the real man in Geneva and zero of it would be positive. One thing's for sure he was consistent, consistently evil and power-hungry. Like the Nazis the Geneva Council kept extensive records on all activities that happened in the 22 years when Cauvin was in power. That's makes it easy to see the real person and not just a few isolated incidents. Anyone who claims Cauvin did not control Geneva is a bald faced liar. He was into every aspect of any activity in Geneva including what is in your house. The man invented narcissism. What would you call someone who claimed they were the One & Only Voice of God on Earth and demanded the government make that into law, which they did. He also demanded his utterances and writings be considered a Holy Writ which no man could speak against. Once again the Geneva Council made that into law. This alone should have rang alarms of danger but it didn't. People soon found out the hard way Cauvin tolerated no questions to HIS twisted ideas.
This was an excellent episode. I find it interesting how Catholicism somewhat is able to reconcile historical injustices with still having a place in modernity, the world in the past was just more violent and eventually got better. It is Protestants interestingly enough who make their identity “rejecting the past” but exclusively use this to address lofty theological issues without actually acting any nobler or holier.
Wow, I am blown away by the sheer contrast between this portrayal and 'the rest is history' podcasts portrayal of the same event and characters. I don't know exactly what it means, but the different framings are fascinating. Schubert contrasts a modern moral criticism of the events themselves against how they saw it, while Holland sees it as an early form of exactly the moral difficulties we find ourselves in at the moment.
Schubert is a polymath, both a singer/songwriter and a historian. Refreshing. She makes a great story-teller and presenter, but I would like to see a lot more visuals. Otherwise, it comes across like a college lecture, but without the whiteboard.
For a guy who claimed to be ridding the "church" of popery, he sure borrowed a lot of its ideas and operating methods. Little wonder he was called Pope of Geneva and that was when he was alive ruling in Geneva. It was not something ginned up years later by someone taking a swipe at him.
Dear Eva, I agree with you that the doctrine of predestination is confusing, but I would say that it is more controversial than confusing. It is controversial because there are a variety of views about God's Sovereignty ... "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated." (Ro.9:13). God is a God of merci and justice. Jacob received merci; Esau received justice. God is not unjust and He can not be. It is impossible for God to be unjust. God is not like men. God sees the heart! Jacob and Esau chose their path ...
So he created esau to rot in everlasting torment and pain and suffering never to cease not for even one millisecond.. huh cool. Sounds pretty perfect and loving and just to me.. man I hope "god" doesn't hate me.. oh but the road is narrow and many shall perish. Wow! how just!! Trillions of people created for the hellfire and torment. How ridiculous.. why do people subject their brains to this nonsense and guilt? You know he's not the first mythological god that has a bad place for unbelievers right?? We are not born into sin and we are not guilty by birth. We are not snow covered dung in christ. There is no savior who will save you for eating his flesh and performing blood magic rituals or some sayng magic words. Do you believe in zues or horus or Hercules or mythra? Monotheism and the abrahamic god mythology has been the most destructive religion humankind has ever devised.
@@dirktucker77 My dear dirktucker, I understand your opinion on Esau and Jacob. It is certainly contrary to mine. You do not believe in Jacob's god; you believe in Esau's god, and that is Esau himself. You condemn Jacob's and I get that. I condemn no one. Time will agree with you or with me. We'll see each other face to face, but not from the same ground, or who knows, maybe we'll be on the same ground. We'll witness our own destiny ... God is just and merciful ...
Predestination is not terribly confusing when God is omniiscient. This makes the concept of reincarnation helpful. Which I have been told that a the wife of a Byzantine emporer had it banned. Remember, NT: A man was born blind & someone asked Jesus, was why? Was it because of something he had done? Reply, Neither, so that your Father in heaven could be glorified. Jesus healed him.
@@kenwalker687Dear K., To the human mind, which is not omniscient, it is, strictly speaking, confusing ... What is the relation you make between omniscience and reincarnation? ... And the Byzantine emperor's wife? ... I understand the relation you make between the biblical account of the man born blind and predestination, that is to see the glory of God. This is happening at this very present moment ... and every second ...
Stephen Langton, a British scholar and Archbishop of Canterbury introduced chapters to the in the 13th century. Robert Estienne, a French printer and scholar, numbered the verses within the New Testament in 1551, and completed the whole Bible in 1555. The Geneva Bible, with chapters and versus came out in 1560. It was definitely not the first...
Thanks. That rang a bell because I'd certainly heard it if Cauvin had actually accomplished something "positive'. There's times I think dividing into chapters and verses is more a help to cherry pickers who love to hang onto a verve like its the bulk of the Gospel because its got a number.
At times it seems to prevent people from reading words and sentences in context. You can take innumerable passages and without context say they mean anything you want.
Man, its almost like when God visited this earth in the form of man in Jesus, that he could have wrote something down.. like anything.. so we wouldn't all be confused about his book...
I have heard the Story about Servet. in some versions I heard that Servet was quite fanatical in his believes and that he came to Geneva to denounce John Calvin and if he succeeded he would have John Calvin burn at the stake. About John Calvin writing to the Inquisition was that something he did to other people he disagreed with?
I am not aware of Calvin writing to in the Inquisition about anyone else. However any suggestion that Michael Servetus had any power over Calvin in Geneva or was a threat to his safety is laughable.
@@evaschubert1 I remembered where I heard this (in a video Calvin vs. The baptists round the 52 minute mark) there was a quote and reference. ...I demand that my false accuser be punished, pænâ talionis [by retaliative justice], and that he be detained a prisoner like me, till the cause be decided for his death or mine, or some other punishment. And to accomplish that, I now lodge accusation against him for the said pænâ talionis. And I am content to dei if he be not convicted of these things, as well as of others which I shall bring forward. Wherefor, like a magician, as he is, he ought not merely to be condemned, but to be exterminated... Michael Servetus, Articles On Which He Wishes J. Calvin To Be Interrogated (1553)
@@honderddertigkmh5950based on this quote, it could only have been uttered when Servetus was in prison, which was either in the hands of the Inquisition, or (without authority) in Geneva. In both cases Calvin has initiated his ordeal and Servetus is trying to defend himself, not the other way around.
In some forms, formings, formats, or formations Theocracies could be pulled off and workable, standable, or maneagable if they do not let it overtake the sanctity of life or the living yeah.
The Trinity is the notion that God is three aspects in one. It has not been in place since very early Christianity, and is not found in the New Testament, though passages that mention the Holy Spirit, the Son, the Father, are often used to suport it. It was actually the product of the early medieval Council of Nicea. It does seem radical that someone would object to it in the 16th century, but, he may have noticed that it isn't supported in the New Testament, just as indulgences aren't. The earliest Christians didn't think that Jesus was God. They did think he was some sort of divine man - like Moses and Elijah. They didn't think he was born of a virgin, and they likely think he was transfigured into Heaven three days after his death, as Mark appeass to. Mark states he was adopted by God at his baptism. There are hints of that elsewhere as well. In reality it comes across that he was a dot eisciple of John the Baptist. Calvin was certainly a bigot, a tyrant, and a dangerous man, but given that he thought Cervantes was doing something dangerous and criminal, it isn't right to hold him to copyright standards to keep the things he wrote to him secret. None of this ridiculousness of things sent to him in confidence or whatever. In fact since it was an intellectual debate it was public, even if it was letters. Not even modern European copyright treaties treat criminal behavior as protected by privacy. If it was an executable offense to disagree with John Calvin in Geneva, and John Calvin had Cervantes in custudy in Geneva, how was there no law under which he could be executed? Again, you and I htink Calvin was a tyrant, but you're confusing our excessively liberal standards with the standards of Calvin's time and place. The fact that many authorities disagreed with Calvin did not make his actions illegal. Like you said, it's not hard to see how he had enemies. Actually I don't think you realize that current liberals are every bit as arrogant and tyrannical, and mean, as John Calvin. You can't burn people at the stake, but you do the next best things. You censor medieval people for having different values and ways than you do. You call Martin Luther an antisemite, and the man lived in Germany in the 15th century! Plus, while your statement that Luther hated Jews for not converting to Christianity is broadly true, you neglect to point out he argued for acceptance of Jews until he realized they wouldn't convert to Christianity. He did not hate them for being Jews. Both the Spanish inquisition and Hitler went after people with recent ancestors who were Jewish but converted to Christianity! Nazis went after people who didn't have blond hair! Luther's vituperation at anyone who did not agree with him was completely equal opportunity. I half expect you will now report me to You Tube for daring to say this. There's enough people who would. How dare I not think of every issue in every detail exactly as you believe I must. The fate of the world rides on me coming to think exactly as you do in every detail, or else be shut up. You think the way Calvinists did! The Calvinists were medieval people. The doctrine of predestination came straight out of medieval social structure. As below so above. Talk about being bound by the mindset of their time; they conceived of God as a manic depressive feudal warlord, and people as his hapless subjects who could not even will to step out of place, but must praise his Holy Name no matter what cruel and horrible things he does. They thought that wrong thinking is dangerous and people who did it must be executed horribly. They disagreed over whose thinking was wrong and dangerous. The notion of freedom of thought or of speech evolved only as Europeans began to get tired of constant terror and war. In central Europe it took centuries. It did not happen as Protestants gained power. LOuis XIV of France literally declared world war, going to war in several very different parts of Europe at once, to wipe Protestants off the face of the earth. When he began to run short of soldiers he just did scorched earth. This is how most of my German ancestors got to Pennsylvania.
Thank for your work and insight. Throughout your lecture, several times I was nearly jumping up and yelling....FINALLY finally at last there is someone who sees thru all smoke and mirrors and lies of Jean Cauvin the dark twisted heart of Geneva. The really big one is the section around 29:28 and beyond is something I came to the realization at least several years ago. It became obvious that Cauvin had copied or imitated in principle a LOT of the practices and doctrines, other beliefs or practices of Rome. And as you noted, the church "judicial system" of murdering people they didn't like or who pushed back. Yes, he took the Rome lattice work and redecorated it with HIS views. Cauvin did not know the Bible very well which is obvious by his statements and in his commentaries. He was trying his best to recreate an OT Sinai covenant society, that is super obvious. But Cauvin ignored the words of Jesus who declared there was a new covenant as the old has passed away. Here's the one big giant flashing danger light on Jean Cauvin> what kind of man would declare that he and he alone is THE Voice of God on Earth and demand the Geneva Council put that into law and enforce it. Which the Geneva Council did. Cauvin also demanded HIS writings and utterances be given the status of Holy Writ, the same as the Bible's authors. The Council also approved that demand saying "no man could speak against it" as in Cauvin's words. Since Cauvin could not be questioned on anything and could persecute anyone saying anything he didn't like, Cauvin had free rein to run wild with no checks and balances to straighten out all his false ""theology"" and outright lies which are part of Calvinism. Catholicism and Calvinism were pushed at the point of the sword/government. Neither paying the slightest attention to the examples and words of Jesus Christ. But what else can you expect from a humanist lawyer indoctrinated by Roman Catholicism.
40:17 Ooh the torture part. That was a HUGE tool in Cauvin's control. Where did Jesus say you were to have your own PERSONAL torturer??? Where did Jesus say "Torture those twice a day for 30 days until they confess that you, Jean Cauvin, are correct??"" It took a real effort over several years to find the name of Cauvin's personal torturer. When the decieved try to snag me on "you don't know Calvinism", I just ask them.....Tell me the name of Cauvin's personal torturer. None of them even try, because they're too lazy and would rather cling to the pillar of lies that is their home and safe space. Obviously they don't know Calvinism very well.
In practise no reformer allowed common people to interpret the Bible according their own reading. For instance in Zürich the reformer Zwingli persecuted Babtists and had some of them drowned. And of course in Lutheran countries you were not allowed to openly practice a faith which differed from the official orthodoxy which was enforced by the state because protestant churches were state churches controlled by the state. There was no separation between church and state.
I really have to complement your ability to find a clear line of story through all the myriad byways of this history that you could have gotten lost in. You are careful to let each side say what they meant, which is rare. And you give the background for why each side said what they said. The one thing I've always run into in church history is polemic. Don't see much of that here.
Thank you for noticing what I am trying so hard to do. It isn't easy, and picking a narrative line to follow inevitably means choosing what to leave out as well as what to include for the sake of clarity.
Catholicism is mistletoe to Biblical Christianity, no? Holy-days and the Gregorian calendar, rather than the feast days and what the Bible maps out, can be examples of protestantism shaking free of Catholic influence by degrees. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. (John 6 KJV)
You know what I wish you hadn't left out? I wish you'd talked about the religious tolerance in Poland and Hungary. For example, you might have mentioned the Parliament of Torda in 1568 which recognised religious liberty for the first time in Europe. But you didn't. Pity, now your viewers will think all Christians were as bloodthirsty as you over in the West!
im going to take in your videos becaudr its a great lYer that fills oit thr picture. i love how you try to put these charscters in a historic contect. " 11:41 Rome eas sacked ". i remember that. and likr i sau. ill soak up all your work. i recently lrarnrd that luther calked goid works eorse than sin. i tnimk he wascspiritualy lazy and more avdoctore of law tgan of religion.
In many ways I think Protestants were worse than Catholics, especially for their impact on the culture and unity of Europe. They had legitimate grievances and the reformation was bound to happen. Their senseless destruction of beauty, art , architecture and tradition associated with the Catholic church (that has become synonomous with European/western culture, ie Gothic architecture, choral music) and the way they splintered off into numerous sects. But, maybe they were also responsible for the tempering of the CC into what it has become today, a relatively benign institution that no longer governs every aspect of people's lives. PS: regarding your comment about Communism below....I agree one hundred percent. I am amazed at the growing number of young people in western countries who make excuses for it and think that if we just do it properly, it will deliver the utopia it promises. I would say that the majority of westerners have learned how bad theocracy and fascism are, from history of fighting Nazi Germany and from current theocratic states like Iran. But I find it alarming at how the west in general does not seem to have learned the evils of communism and Marxism, like those in former Marxist/Communist countries have.
The destruction of the art and music of churches was indeed lamentable. Every time I go to Italy and enter a cathedral or listen to a Canterbury choral performance this is underlined.
It is certainly true for Calvin. Luther was much less extreme, there are still many beautiful lutheran churches around in northern Europe (not so rarely with the painted or sculptered Alter inherited from the catholic period). In Alsace, there are some simultaneous churches used by Catholics and Lutherans, a great idea in my eyes. Luther liked and encouraged music in all forms. Two of the greatest musicians G F Händel and J S Bach were Lutheran.... But you are right, it is a tragedy that the protestants and catholics couldn't handle their differences in a "christian" (=peaceful) manner!
Luther was quite on the same page with Calvin. He denied free will. And without free will you have no proper agency in a meaningful sense. That is why we do not punish animals. And Luther also denied that good works played any role regarding salvation. He even wrote that only very few people would be saved.
If all people are predestined, not only is God the author of sin, there is absolutely no reason for a church or religion of any sort. You could say that the “saved” would worship anyway by Calvin’s theory, but everyone feeling compelled to perform the worshiping so that they may be seen as saved Christians or rather convince themselves that they are saved are merely doing “works” that have no bearing on their salvation. Thus, those who are “truly saved” would conversely NOT go to church and worship. If any worship was to be done, they aught to do it completely in private and never talk about it if they truly believed they are among the chosen few 😂 Nor should they instruct or teach others about faith, because a truly saved person would already know and worship privately and others not chosen would not reap any benefits from the teaching.
It is only historically fair to point out, that, John Calvin, as he was living in Geniva, was not Mr. Geniva (the rulers of Geniva), nor a citizen (citoyen who can be elected ruler) of Geniva, not even a bourgois (freeman with voting right), but only a habitant (not allowed to vote). Calvin was invited to be the pastor of Geniva church, not the political ruler of the city. In Geniva, Calvin had no executive or judicial power, which was belonging only to the Petit Conseil. As a resident, Calvin could not order the city coucil to arrest or kill anybody. Then how could he be held responsible for the death of the people in that city? Oh, by spiritual influence? If by the same token, you can also hold Billy Graham accountable for all the crims, death and the wars waged from within America in later half of the twentieth century and beyond because his more favorable spiritual influnce upon the presidents of the time?
@@oleredk233 Technically, yes, John Locke. Because they were English and Scottish people anyway. But spiritually, still Calvin. Because England and Scotland were Calvinistic in theology at the time and puritans and Presbyterian who were Calvinists were the backbones who established USA. By the way, the Colonists weren’t going to war with their mother land just for Locke’s political theory.
Ms. Schubert, I am very grateful for your dedication to this series, which has greatly enriched my life. :) Personally, I think the doctrine which Michael Servetus promulgated was closer to the truth of God. For example, Deuteronomy 6:4 clearly says "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One." If Jesus is a "second person" or a "junior god" other than the God from the Old Testament, then apostle Paul, a devout pharisee would definitely not obey. It is very hard to believe anyone would somehow come up a "3-person god" idea at that time, as oneness being the core of Judaism. Michael's view has been pretty much inherited and adopted by Dr. David Bernard, who is one of the leading oneness theologians today.
@evaschubert1 It's so kind of you! If you do not mind, I really would like to know your opinion on George Fox and Quakers. Especially when compared to the mainline Christianity you have discussed so far. Please have a great day. ☺️
@@weber8219 I believe the Quakers may come up in the next episode. They certainly had a radical ethic of equality that distinguishes them from many other groups.
@evaschubert1 Once again, I am very grateful for your kindness. I've somehow found myself addicted to your voice. Excited to see you soon in the next episode :) !
Wow! I certainly never learned about the darker side of John Calvin in high school, Sunday School or my Genva Bible translation. I would have thought that he would not have become as bad as his Roman adversaries who would have convicted & burned him.
When I first saw the title, even though it mentioned theocracy, I thought it was going to be a promotion of Calvin. I already didn't like Calvin for his predestination theology, but now I see him as a cruel religious dictator, not a Christian; he had religion but not a heart for God. There is no way he was led by God's Holy Spirit, more like an evil spirit. His 'T.U.L.I.P' teaching begins with the idea that all of mankind is "totally depraved." The bible doesn't say that; it says that all have sinned; a big difference. It goes downhill from there as he builds on it and declares that God only made a few for salvation, and the rest He made for destruction. The bible nowhere says that God made any for destruction. We do know, of course, that many will not enter heaven, but it doesn't infer that God planned it that way. It fits in with his despotic ways. God says that 'as man thinks in his heart, so is he.' Calvin planned to murder people, and indeed did have them murdered. I have absolutely no respect for Calvin, and do not believe he entered heaven. Sad to say, there are people of the reformed church who follow him. Something worth looking at is 'Augustinian Calvinism.' Calvin built on the work of Augustine who drifted between paganism and Christianity. He believed that God made many to go to hell.
Disappointed that is mentioned here that John Calvin’s theology is “confusing”. Historically, Calvin’s theology is most biblical, most clear and cohesive one.
the Young Francis DeSales demolished Calvin's errors in France with his tracts Collected in "the Catholic Controversy" DeSalles reconverted 100% of the Chablis region of France. later DeSales was made Bishop of Geneva and Dr of the Church.
Satan, the morning star. Oh wait that was Jesus.. shoot now I'm confused again.. which of the 12 disciples were the 12 signs of the zodiac again? Was it isis and horus that was the first Madonna?
This channel is a hidden gem.
I hope you’ll continue to offer us many more of these wonderful videos…
i'm totally diggin' this series on the reformation. this channel needs to be discovered by people who enjoy history, the content is stellar! -thank you for all you do.
Thank you. I really appreciate your comment. 🙂
Thank you for another great listen. It is a pleasure to listen to your podcast. So much information I never new.
Thanks for listening and letting me know ❤
Thank you so much for your efforts and labor in bringing history to us. Ran across your videos listening to another history channel. Your shows are awesome
Plan to listen to all.
This is really outstanding, well organized content, intelligently delivered. Liked and subscribed.
Thank you so much
Eva! 💝I look forward to learning more! Fascinating! 🤔
Thank you for yet another deeply researched and detailed analysis. I would like to offer a theory of my own. Martin Luther was active within the Holy Roman Empire, he had a poferful supporter and sponsor in Prince Elector of Saxony, but he, in a way, also kept him in check. The Swiss Confederacy was never a part of the Holy Roman Empire, therefore there was a certain political dimension missing there, which allowed people like Calvin to run riot in cities which weren't under feudal control but weren't as well connected or politically astute as the Hanseatic League of the North.
In fact the Swiss Confederacy was at least formally part of the German empire until 1648.
@@piushalg5041 I'm not familiar about formally part of the German empire. In all my research on Jean Cauvin man in Geneva, which sucked in other nearby cities at times, the attachment must have been on the casual side. Attached loosely by language and custom and trade.
One trend I noticed as Cauvin's reign progressed to the abyss, is even the closest cities were keeping Cauvin's Geneva at arms length.
Example, refusing to extradite innocent people to Cauvin so he could hang/burn them on trumped up charges which had the death penalty. And that was Cauvin's #1 fanboy and obedient student and servant. With "friends" like that who needs the pope or archbishops as enemies??
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 All you need is to consult a historical atlas which shows the boundaries of the empire over time. Fact is that the power of the emperor had greatly diminished over time and the principalities and city states had become very autonomous. The Swiss even fought a war against the emperor in 1499 because the wanted tax exemption and exemption of Imperial jurisdiction. They won.
After literally months and months of studying Calvinism I have come to the conclusion that their view of the character of Christ is entirely different than mainstream Christianity.
In my wildest dreams I never knew after serving the Lord for over 38 years that there was a group of people out there claiming to be Christians who literally believe that man can choose anything except Jesus, that Jesus does not love everyone (salvation love), that Jesus did not die for everyone, and that God does not want everyone saved.
Can someone PLEASE explain how these people are truly brothers and sisters in Christ since their view of Christ is so contrary to clear biblical teaching? I just cannot wrap my brain around this.
Because Christianity was completely made up by Rome. Christ was not real. Literally zero evidence. Rome tried to give the jews their messiah and their new temple so they could end the wars and create a passafist subservient religion. Don't you ever wonder why "god" is so different in the new testament? No more genocidal racist land theft of the old testament. All of a sudden he's a god of love and peace.. cmone man. Why do you think Christianity has the most protestant denominations of any religion ever devised? Written real world history not not support any of the Bible and neither does archeological evidence. How do you as a Christian reconcile the atrocities of the abrahimic god? We don't believe in zues and horus anymore. It's time humanity stops believing in the abrahimic god mythology as well.
There might be canonical books that you do not recognize or acknowledge?...
I’m not really a practicing Christian these days but I believe strongly in the basic tenets and have to completely agree with you. I don’t see at all how following Calvinism fits into Christianity as a whole….to me it seems like a “how to start a cult” starter kit
The short answer is that they believed in Jesus and went through the motions thereof. Everything else is "humans being humans," depending on who you ask. Christians believing in Christ doesn't make them good people, good Christians, or moral, Calvinists or otherwise. Were they Christians even if they implemented an objectively horrible practice of their faith? Absolutely. Christians are still sinners and are more than capable of atrocities, even in the name of their faith.
I think you have a bit of a skewed view of your religion. There are some 30,000 different sects of Christianity, all varying across a wide spectrum of beliefs about specific issues. If you're on one fringe, I can understand you feeling disconnected from another fringe. But in terms of the fundamental approach to the world, it all looks basically the same to an outsider, just shades of grey.
To understand this, I think it's important to ask yourself: all those ancient laws and stories that your own sect ignores... why exactly do you ignore those specific ones, but not others? Because they're cruel, or nonsensical, or no longer apply in the modern world? How prescriptive are the words in the Bible to you, exactly?
If I believed in a god, AND if I believed that the words in the Bible were those of my god, then Calvin's way is probably close to how I'd approach it. I think that's the key, the reliance on the written word as the primary medium of information transfer, versus the use of spoken word, customs and rituals, or art and architecture. The OT says to kill disobedient children; well, if that's really God's will, then who am I to deny it? That kid who hit his parents should lose his head.
If you place less emphasis on the text and more on other things, then you can come to other conclusions. But it's still the same core belief. (You don't have to feel fraternity though, in the same way that a dog and a coyote won't always get along... they look similar from the outside, but have some key differences too.)
John Calvin “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” wow I never knew what a 💩 this guy was!!! Really had a strong reaction to this one. Great series, enjoying it very much so far
After spending several years digging for objective contemporary information on how Jean Cauvin (his real French name) and hundreds of hours reading documents, etc., I could go for hours on the works of the real man in Geneva and zero of it would be positive. One thing's for sure he was consistent, consistently evil and power-hungry. Like the Nazis the Geneva Council kept extensive records on all activities that happened in the 22 years when Cauvin was in power. That's makes it easy to see the real person and not just a few isolated incidents.
Anyone who claims Cauvin did not control Geneva is a bald faced liar. He was into every aspect of any activity in Geneva including what is in your house. The man invented narcissism. What would you call someone who claimed they were the One & Only Voice of God on Earth and demanded the government make that into law, which they did.
He also demanded his utterances and writings be considered a Holy Writ which no man could speak against. Once again the Geneva Council made that into law. This alone should have rang alarms of danger but it didn't. People soon found out the hard way Cauvin tolerated no questions to HIS twisted ideas.
Hello Frau Schubert. I kindly thank you for the lecture. You are a great explainer 👏.
I am so glad you found it helpful! 😊
This was an excellent episode. I find it interesting how Catholicism somewhat is able to reconcile historical injustices with still having a place in modernity, the world in the past was just more violent and eventually got better. It is Protestants interestingly enough who make their identity “rejecting the past” but exclusively use this to address lofty theological issues without actually acting any nobler or holier.
Wow, I am blown away by the sheer contrast between this portrayal and 'the rest is history' podcasts portrayal of the same event and characters. I don't know exactly what it means, but the different framings are fascinating. Schubert contrasts a modern moral criticism of the events themselves against how they saw it, while Holland sees it as an early form of exactly the moral difficulties we find ourselves in at the moment.
Schubert is a polymath, both a singer/songwriter and a historian. Refreshing. She makes a great story-teller and presenter, but I would like to see a lot more visuals. Otherwise, it comes across like a college lecture, but without the whiteboard.
Really enjoyed your talk on Calvin. You clarified Calvinism perfectly.
For a guy who claimed to be ridding the "church" of popery, he sure borrowed a lot of its ideas and operating methods. Little wonder he was called Pope of Geneva and that was when he was alive ruling in Geneva. It was not something ginned up years later by someone taking a swipe at him.
Great lectures.
Roman Catholic dogma on the Trinity is that it is a mystery, and if you think you understand it you don't.
If it's such a mystery which cannot be understood, then how in God's name can they anathematise anyone who doesn't understand it the way they do?
@@greyghostrider5622 you are asking the wrong person. Talk to a priest!
The Nicene Creed is not a formal proof.
…which makes sense. “Ignoramus et ignorabimus”
That was enthralling. I wonder why John Calvin is revered in some protestant denominations. I'll look forward to your next episode!
Definitely more to come in this series 😊
@@evaschubert1is there a new episode, or is this one the most recent?
@@marktodd3097i actually just recorded the next one (episode 4) but at the moment this is the most recent one available 😉
@@evaschubert1 I look forward to it
Dear Eva, I agree with you that the doctrine of predestination is confusing, but I would say that it is more controversial than confusing. It is controversial because there are a variety of views about God's Sovereignty ... "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated." (Ro.9:13). God is a God of merci and justice. Jacob received merci; Esau received justice. God is not unjust and He can not be. It is impossible for God to be unjust. God is not like men. God sees the heart! Jacob and Esau chose their path ...
So he created esau to rot in everlasting torment and pain and suffering never to cease not for even one millisecond.. huh cool. Sounds pretty perfect and loving and just to me.. man I hope "god" doesn't hate me.. oh but the road is narrow and many shall perish. Wow! how just!! Trillions of people created for the hellfire and torment. How ridiculous.. why do people subject their brains to this nonsense and guilt? You know he's not the first mythological god that has a bad place for unbelievers right?? We are not born into sin and we are not guilty by birth. We are not snow covered dung in christ. There is no savior who will save you for eating his flesh and performing blood magic rituals or some sayng magic words. Do you believe in zues or horus or Hercules or mythra? Monotheism and the abrahamic god mythology has been the most destructive religion humankind has ever devised.
@@dirktucker77 My dear dirktucker, I understand your opinion on Esau and Jacob. It is certainly contrary to mine. You do not believe in Jacob's god; you believe in Esau's god, and that is Esau himself. You condemn Jacob's and I get that. I condemn no one. Time will agree with you or with me. We'll see each other face to face, but not from the same ground, or who knows, maybe we'll be on the same ground. We'll witness our own destiny ... God is just and merciful ...
Predestination is not terribly confusing when God is omniiscient. This makes the concept of reincarnation helpful. Which I have been told that a the wife of a Byzantine emporer had it banned. Remember, NT: A man was born blind & someone asked Jesus, was why? Was it because of something he had done? Reply, Neither, so that your Father in heaven could be glorified. Jesus healed him.
@@kenwalker687Dear K., To the human mind, which is not omniscient, it is, strictly speaking, confusing ... What is the relation you make between omniscience and reincarnation? ... And the Byzantine emperor's wife? ... I understand the relation you make between the biblical account of the man born blind and predestination, that is to see the glory of God. This is happening at this very present moment ... and every second ...
Stephen Langton, a British scholar and Archbishop of Canterbury
introduced chapters to the in the 13th century.
Robert Estienne, a French printer and scholar, numbered the verses within the New Testament in 1551, and completed the whole Bible in 1555.
The Geneva Bible, with chapters and versus came out in 1560. It was definitely not the first...
Thanks. That rang a bell because I'd certainly heard it if Cauvin had actually accomplished something "positive'. There's times I think dividing into chapters and verses is more a help to cherry pickers who love to hang onto a verve like its the bulk of the Gospel because its got a number.
At times it seems to prevent people from reading words and sentences in context. You can take innumerable passages and without context say they mean anything you want.
Wow Melisandre sure knows a lot about church history
Man, its almost like when God visited this earth in the form of man in Jesus, that he could have wrote something down.. like anything.. so we wouldn't all be confused about his book...
Well now I want to know how Geneva did after Calvin kicked it
I have heard the Story about Servet. in some versions I heard that Servet was quite fanatical in his believes and that he came to Geneva to denounce John Calvin and if he succeeded he would have John Calvin burn at the stake.
About John Calvin writing to the Inquisition was that something he did to other people he disagreed with?
I am not aware of Calvin writing to in the Inquisition about anyone else. However any suggestion that Michael Servetus had any power over Calvin in Geneva or was a threat to his safety is laughable.
@@evaschubert1 I remembered where I heard this (in a video Calvin vs. The baptists round the 52 minute mark) there was a quote and reference.
...I demand that my false accuser be punished, pænâ talionis [by retaliative justice], and that he be detained a prisoner like me, till the cause be decided for his death or mine, or some other punishment. And to accomplish that, I now lodge accusation against him for the said pænâ talionis. And I am content to dei if he be not convicted of these things, as well as of others which I shall bring forward. Wherefor, like a magician, as he is, he ought not merely to be condemned, but to be exterminated...
Michael Servetus, Articles On Which He Wishes J. Calvin To Be Interrogated (1553)
@@honderddertigkmh5950based on this quote, it could only have been uttered when Servetus was in prison, which was either in the hands of the Inquisition, or (without authority) in Geneva. In both cases Calvin has initiated his ordeal and Servetus is trying to defend himself, not the other way around.
Starting off with the myth of Galileo from the start undermines your credibility.
This was sooo good. Thank you 🙏🏻
In some forms, formings, formats, or formations Theocracies could be pulled off and workable, standable, or maneagable if they do not let it overtake the sanctity of life or the living yeah.
People say the same thing about Communism.
@@evaschubert1
I agree with you Frau Schubert. Thanks 🙏 for your video.
Geneva under John Calvin and his Council was such an awful theocracy very similar to SA, Yemen, Mauritania, Iran and so on.
Geneva was never “under” John Calvin, he wasn’t a Genevan citizen until at the end of his life.
Martin Luther was even worse than Calvin
Eva....The main duty of a priest is to offer sacrifice.
The Trinity is the notion that God is three aspects in one. It has not been in place since very early Christianity, and is not found in the New Testament, though passages that mention the Holy Spirit, the Son, the Father, are often used to suport it. It was actually the product of the early medieval Council of Nicea. It does seem radical that someone would object to it in the 16th century, but, he may have noticed that it isn't supported in the New Testament, just as indulgences aren't.
The earliest Christians didn't think that Jesus was God. They did think he was some sort of divine man - like Moses and Elijah. They didn't think he was born of a virgin, and they likely think he was transfigured into Heaven three days after his death, as Mark appeass to. Mark states he was adopted by God at his baptism. There are hints of that elsewhere as well. In reality it comes across that he was a dot eisciple of John the Baptist.
Calvin was certainly a bigot, a tyrant, and a dangerous man, but given that he thought Cervantes was doing something dangerous and criminal, it isn't right to hold him to copyright standards to keep the things he wrote to him secret. None of this ridiculousness of things sent to him in confidence or whatever. In fact since it was an intellectual debate it was public, even if it was letters. Not even modern European copyright treaties treat criminal behavior as protected by privacy.
If it was an executable offense to disagree with John Calvin in Geneva, and John Calvin had Cervantes in custudy in Geneva, how was there no law under which he could be executed? Again, you and I htink Calvin was a tyrant, but you're confusing our excessively liberal standards with the standards of Calvin's time and place. The fact that many authorities disagreed with Calvin did not make his actions illegal. Like you said, it's not hard to see how he had enemies. Actually I don't think you realize that current liberals are every bit as arrogant and tyrannical, and mean, as John Calvin. You can't burn people at the stake, but you do the next best things. You censor medieval people for having different values and ways than you do. You call Martin Luther an antisemite, and the man lived in Germany in the 15th century! Plus, while your statement that Luther hated Jews for not converting to Christianity is broadly true, you neglect to point out he argued for acceptance of Jews until he realized they wouldn't convert to Christianity. He did not hate them for being Jews. Both the Spanish inquisition and Hitler went after people with recent ancestors who were Jewish but converted to Christianity! Nazis went after people who didn't have blond hair! Luther's vituperation at anyone who did not agree with him was completely equal opportunity.
I half expect you will now report me to You Tube for daring to say this. There's enough people who would. How dare I not think of every issue in every detail exactly as you believe I must. The fate of the world rides on me coming to think exactly as you do in every detail, or else be shut up. You think the way Calvinists did!
The Calvinists were medieval people. The doctrine of predestination came straight out of medieval social structure. As below so above. Talk about being bound by the mindset of their time; they conceived of God as a manic depressive feudal warlord, and people as his hapless subjects who could not even will to step out of place, but must praise his Holy Name no matter what cruel and horrible things he does. They thought that wrong thinking is dangerous and people who did it must be executed horribly. They disagreed over whose thinking was wrong and dangerous. The notion of freedom of thought or of speech evolved only as Europeans began to get tired of constant terror and war. In central Europe it took centuries. It did not happen as Protestants gained power. LOuis XIV of France literally declared world war, going to war in several very different parts of Europe at once, to wipe Protestants off the face of the earth. When he began to run short of soldiers he just did scorched earth. This is how most of my German ancestors got to Pennsylvania.
Thank for your work and insight. Throughout your lecture, several times I was nearly jumping up and yelling....FINALLY finally at last there is someone who sees thru all smoke and mirrors and lies of Jean Cauvin the dark twisted heart of Geneva.
The really big one is the section around 29:28 and beyond is something I came to the realization at least several years ago. It became obvious that Cauvin had copied or imitated in principle a LOT of the practices and doctrines, other beliefs or practices of Rome. And as you noted, the church "judicial system" of murdering people they didn't like or who pushed back.
Yes, he took the Rome lattice work and redecorated it with HIS views. Cauvin did not know the Bible very well which is obvious by his statements and in his commentaries. He was trying his best to recreate an OT Sinai covenant society, that is super obvious. But Cauvin ignored the words of Jesus who declared there was a new covenant as the old has passed away.
Here's the one big giant flashing danger light on Jean Cauvin> what kind of man would declare that he and he alone is THE Voice of God on Earth and demand the Geneva Council put that into law and enforce it. Which the Geneva Council did. Cauvin also demanded HIS writings and utterances be given the status of Holy Writ, the same as the Bible's authors. The Council also approved that demand saying "no man could speak against it" as in Cauvin's words.
Since Cauvin could not be questioned on anything and could persecute anyone saying anything he didn't like, Cauvin had free rein to run wild with no checks and balances to straighten out all his false ""theology"" and outright lies which are part of Calvinism.
Catholicism and Calvinism were pushed at the point of the sword/government. Neither paying the slightest attention to the examples and words of Jesus Christ.
But what else can you expect from a humanist lawyer indoctrinated by Roman Catholicism.
40:17 Ooh the torture part. That was a HUGE tool in Cauvin's control. Where did Jesus say you were to have your own PERSONAL torturer??? Where did Jesus say "Torture those twice a day for 30 days until they confess that you, Jean Cauvin, are correct??"" It took a real effort over several years to find the name of Cauvin's personal torturer. When the decieved try to snag me on "you don't know Calvinism", I just ask them.....Tell me the name of Cauvin's personal torturer. None of them even try, because they're too lazy and would rather cling to the pillar of lies that is their home and safe space. Obviously they don't know Calvinism very well.
In practise no reformer allowed common people to interpret the Bible according their own reading. For instance in Zürich the reformer Zwingli persecuted Babtists and had some of them drowned. And of course in Lutheran countries you were not allowed to openly practice a faith which differed from the official orthodoxy which was enforced by the state because protestant churches were state churches controlled by the state. There was no separation between church and state.
Yes . The pernicious effects of this will be evident in episode 5
Are people from Munster called The Munsters 🤔
God select him to preach do you know ✝️ the disciples sister ?
I really have to complement your ability to find a clear line of story through all the myriad byways of this history that you could have gotten lost in. You are careful to let each side say what they meant, which is rare. And you give the background for why each side said what they said. The one thing I've always run into in church history is polemic. Don't see much of that here.
Thank you for noticing what I am trying so hard to do. It isn't easy, and picking a narrative line to follow inevitably means choosing what to leave out as well as what to include for the sake of clarity.
Catholicism is mistletoe to Biblical Christianity, no? Holy-days and the Gregorian calendar, rather than the feast days and what the Bible maps out, can be examples of protestantism shaking free of Catholic influence by degrees.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. (John 6 KJV)
You know what I wish you hadn't left out? I wish you'd talked about the religious tolerance in Poland and Hungary. For example, you might have mentioned the Parliament of Torda in 1568 which recognised religious liberty for the first time in Europe. But you didn't. Pity, now your viewers will think all Christians were as bloodthirsty as you over in the West!
im going to take in your videos becaudr its a great lYer that fills oit thr picture.
i love how you try to put these charscters in a historic contect. " 11:41 Rome eas sacked ". i remember that. and likr i sau. ill soak up all your work.
i recently lrarnrd that luther calked goid works eorse than sin. i tnimk he wascspiritualy lazy and more avdoctore of law tgan of religion.
In many ways I think Protestants were worse than Catholics, especially for their impact on the culture and unity of Europe. They had legitimate grievances and the reformation was bound to happen. Their senseless destruction of beauty, art , architecture and tradition associated with the Catholic church (that has become synonomous with European/western culture, ie Gothic architecture, choral music) and the way they splintered off into numerous sects. But, maybe they were also responsible for the tempering of the CC into what it has become today, a relatively benign institution that no longer governs every aspect of people's lives.
PS: regarding your comment about Communism below....I agree one hundred percent. I am amazed at the growing number of young people in western countries who make excuses for it and think that if we just do it properly, it will deliver the utopia it promises. I would say that the majority of westerners have learned how bad theocracy and fascism are, from history of fighting Nazi Germany and from current theocratic states like Iran. But I find it alarming at how the west in general does not seem to have learned the evils of communism and Marxism, like those in former Marxist/Communist countries have.
The destruction of the art and music of churches was indeed lamentable. Every time I go to Italy and enter a cathedral or listen to a Canterbury choral performance this is underlined.
It is certainly true for Calvin. Luther was much less extreme, there are still many beautiful lutheran churches around in northern Europe (not so rarely with the painted or sculptered Alter inherited from the catholic period). In Alsace, there are some simultaneous churches used by Catholics and Lutherans, a great idea in my eyes. Luther liked and encouraged music in all forms. Two of the greatest musicians G F Händel and J S Bach were Lutheran.... But you are right, it is a tragedy that the protestants and catholics couldn't handle their differences in a "christian" (=peaceful) manner!
CC? Please do not use code I can't process. It you respond in a foreign language, I can ask Google to translate
@@kenwalker687 Catholic Church=CC
@@kenwalker687 CC=Captain Crunch
Why catholic believe in burgatory
And priest got money from booped to forgive their sins
Luther was quite on the same page with Calvin. He denied free will. And without free will you have no proper agency in a meaningful sense. That is why we do not punish animals. And Luther also denied that good works played any role regarding salvation. He even wrote that only very few people would be saved.
Predestination is so stupid
If all people are predestined, not only is God the author of sin, there is absolutely no reason for a church or religion of any sort. You could say that the “saved” would worship anyway by Calvin’s theory, but everyone feeling compelled to perform the worshiping so that they may be seen as saved Christians or rather convince themselves that they are saved are merely doing “works” that have no bearing on their salvation. Thus, those who are “truly saved” would conversely NOT go to church and worship. If any worship was to be done, they aught to do it completely in private and never talk about it if they truly believed they are among the chosen few 😂 Nor should they instruct or teach others about faith, because a truly saved person would already know and worship privately and others not chosen would not reap any benefits from the teaching.
It is only historically fair to point out, that, John Calvin, as he was living in Geniva, was not Mr. Geniva (the rulers of Geniva), nor a citizen (citoyen who can be elected ruler) of Geniva, not even a bourgois (freeman with voting right), but only a habitant (not allowed to vote). Calvin was invited to be the pastor of Geniva church, not the political ruler of the city. In Geniva, Calvin had no executive or judicial power, which was belonging only to the Petit Conseil. As a resident, Calvin could not order the city coucil to arrest or kill anybody. Then how could he be held responsible for the death of the people in that city? Oh, by spiritual influence? If by the same token, you can also hold Billy Graham accountable for all the crims, death and the wars waged from within America in later half of the twentieth century and beyond because his more favorable spiritual influnce upon the presidents of the time?
Calvin created ideology which led to those crimes.
@@oleredk233 Do not forget that the same Calvin’s theology is also puritan’s theology which led to the establishment of the United States of America.
@@zhengfengyang United States was established on the social contract theory of John Locke.
@@oleredk233 Technically, yes, John Locke. Because they were English and Scottish people anyway. But spiritually, still Calvin. Because England and Scotland were Calvinistic in theology at the time and puritans and Presbyterian who were Calvinists were the backbones who established USA. By the way, the Colonists weren’t going to war with their mother land just for Locke’s political theory.
@@zhengfengyang That explains their atrocities against indigenous people.
Ms. Schubert, I am very grateful for your dedication to this series, which has greatly enriched my life. :)
Personally, I think the doctrine which Michael Servetus promulgated was closer to the truth of God.
For example, Deuteronomy 6:4 clearly says "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One." If Jesus is a "second person" or a "junior god" other than the God from the Old Testament, then apostle Paul, a devout pharisee would definitely not obey. It is very hard to believe anyone would somehow come up a "3-person god" idea at that time, as oneness being the core of Judaism.
Michael's view has been pretty much inherited and adopted by Dr. David Bernard, who is one of the leading oneness theologians today.
Thank you for letting me know. I am so glad to hear that the series has been useful for you.
@evaschubert1 It's so kind of you!
If you do not mind, I really would like to know your opinion on George Fox and Quakers. Especially when compared to the mainline Christianity you have discussed so far.
Please have a great day. ☺️
@@weber8219 I believe the Quakers may come up in the next episode. They certainly had a radical ethic of equality that distinguishes them from many other groups.
@evaschubert1 Once again, I am very grateful for your kindness.
I've somehow found myself addicted to your voice. Excited to see you soon in the next episode :) !
John Calvin reminds me of Erich Honecker. Vile.
Calvin was a nut case.
Wow! I certainly never learned about the darker side of John Calvin in high school, Sunday School or my Genva Bible translation. I would have thought that he would not have become as bad as his Roman adversaries who would have convicted & burned him.
When I first saw the title, even though it mentioned theocracy, I thought it was going to be a promotion of Calvin. I already didn't like Calvin for his predestination theology, but now I see him as a cruel religious dictator, not a Christian; he had religion but not a heart for God. There is no way he was led by God's Holy Spirit, more like an evil spirit. His 'T.U.L.I.P' teaching begins with the idea that all of mankind is "totally depraved." The bible doesn't say that; it says that all have sinned; a big difference. It goes downhill from there as he builds on it and declares that God only made a few for salvation, and the rest He made for destruction. The bible nowhere says that God made any for destruction. We do know, of course, that many will not enter heaven, but it doesn't infer that God planned it that way. It fits in with his despotic ways. God says that 'as man thinks in his heart, so is he.' Calvin planned to murder people, and indeed did have them murdered. I have absolutely no respect for Calvin, and do not believe he entered heaven. Sad to say, there are people of the reformed church who follow him. Something worth looking at is 'Augustinian Calvinism.' Calvin built on the work of Augustine who drifted between paganism and Christianity. He believed that God made many to go to hell.
Actually, the Bible is famous for its doctrine of predestination (Romans 8-9; Ephesians 1; John 1, 17l; Revelation, etc.
It's true. Then again, large parts of the bible are cherrypicked by catholics and protestants alike.
not really
The doctrine of salvation isn't biblical without freedom of choice.
Was Calvin really a follower of Jesus?
By the standard of his time & culture......
You're talking about people and ideas. Not about God.
At least she was👍
Disappointed that is mentioned here that John Calvin’s theology is “confusing”. Historically, Calvin’s theology is most biblical, most clear and cohesive one.
the Young Francis DeSales demolished Calvin's errors in France with his tracts Collected in "the Catholic Controversy"
DeSalles reconverted 100% of the Chablis region of France. later DeSales was made Bishop of Geneva and Dr of the Church.
Calvin - Satan personified.
Satan, the morning star. Oh wait that was Jesus.. shoot now I'm confused again.. which of the 12 disciples were the 12 signs of the zodiac again? Was it isis and horus that was the first Madonna?
Read Beth Allison Barr. Women actually had a greater role before the Reformation.
????
WoW that’s bad history of the church. All the cliché and the simplification. Sorry ma’am but you are not great at history.
What did she say specifically that was incorrect?