John Calvin was a False Teacher

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
By the criteria which Jesus gave us for judging a false prophet (teacher) in Matthew 7:15-16, John Calvin, one of the leaders of French Protestantism (real name Jean Cauvin) in the 16th century, was a false teacher. Not without reason, he was called the "tyrant of Geneva." Among his crimes are the machinations to have the civil authorities send an innocent man (Michael Servetus) to burning at the stake for a theological disagreement (although Calvin allowed later that if he had it to do over again, he would have made sure that they used dry wood, instead of green, for the burning). Calvin also ordered the execution of a nine-year-old girl for slapping her mother. If you point out Calvin's deficiencies to a modern Calvinist, you are often given the excuse that amounts to " Well, yes, but that was then and this is now. They did those kinds of things back then. Still, you cannot deny that the Institutes of the Christian Religion authored by him, is a masterpiece."

Yes, I can deny it. Because Calvin was such a slavish devotee of Augustine, he borrows most of his major teachings from Augustine. In fact, Calvinism was originally called "Calvinistic Augustinianism". Augustine had some serious flaws in his theology that are too lengthy to go into here but, it is one of the reasons why the RCC has backed away from Augustine, even though he was named "Doctor of the Church" by the RCC a long time ago. Don't get me wrong--I am not defending the RCC--much of what the Vatican has done over the centuries are crimes against humanity. All one has to do is read some of the history of the Popes to understand how corrupt the RCC has been in both doctrine and practice. But, under the theory that "it takes a thief to catch a thief" here is a link to a short history of Calvin compiled by a Jesuit priest. Don't worry--Fr. Franca has annotated footnotes and even modern Calvinists would not deny the accuracy of what has been noted by the Jesuit scholar (and, the Jesuits, if nothing else, are scholarly). Be prepared to be shocked: https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e034rpCalvin_Franca05.htm

There are many other scholarly works which describe Calvin's cruelty--among them, Church history books by Calvinists themselves. I have one but I loaned it to someone and never got it back. In any case, it has been long out of print. If you put "John Calvin was a false teacher" into any internet search engine, you will come up with much more than you ever wanted to know about his reign of savagery in Geneva, Switzerland.
 
Last edited:

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
I thought he changed to be one of the reformation preachers I was mistaken.
If you mean Calvin, he was a contemporary of Luther and they had some things in common but, they never met face to face. Fr. Franca does a job on Luther as well. The Jesuits hate Protestantism with a fierceness that can be seen online in the vow that they take to wipe it out. Now that the Jesuits completely control the Vatican, look for an even stronger move against Protestant Christianity.
 

seated with Christ

Well-Known Member
If you mean Calvin, he was a contemporary of Luther and they had some things in common but, they never met face to face. Fr. Franca does a job on Luther as well. The Jesuits hate Protestantism with a fierceness that can be seen online in the vow that they take to wipe it out. Now that the Jesuits completely control the Vatican, look for an even stronger move against Protestant Christianity.
They hate the Textus Receiptus vehemently.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
They hate the Textus Receiptus vehemently.
Yes, the Textus Receptus is a pet peeve of theirs because it contains much of the original Greek text that was translated by Erasmus. RCC doctrine is much based on inferior Latin translations. All modern translations have been taken from the oldest manuscripts--but not necessarily from the best ones. Even if we suddenly lost all the New Testament writings, we could reconstruct the original Greek texts from the writings of the Greek Fathers who quoted LONG passages from the original Greek texts.
 

seated with Christ

Well-Known Member
Yes, the Textus Receptus is a pet peeve of theirs because it contains much of the original Greek text that was translated by Erasmus. RCC doctrine is much based on inferior Latin translations. All modern translations have been taken from the oldest manuscripts--but not necessarily from the best ones. Even if we suddenly lost all the New Testament writings, we could reconstruct the original Greek texts from the writings of the Greek Fathers who quoted LONG passages from the original Greek texts.
We don’t have the original, but there are the oldest copies. If I read koin Greek I would read the Septuagint for it’s accuracy.
 

seated with Christ

Well-Known Member
Yes--I believe it is a better rendering of the Old Testament than are the more modern translations used today by the Jews.
BTW, all the Bible’s that were before the King James were based on the TR.

The King James Bible is a translation not a version.

I better stop talking about versions it’ divisive some might say and I am opinionated. ;)
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
BTW, all the Bible’s that were before the King James were based on the TR.

The King James Bible is a translation not a version.

I better stop talking about versions it’ divisive some might say and I am opinionated. ;)
I love the King James for purposes of memorization--it sticks in the mind much better than the more modern translations. But, it is difficult to get young Christians to comprehend the KJV--especially the epistles.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
Yes and the Archaic language is no problem, you just have to apply ones self.
Getting young Christians to concentrate on the Bible is a frustrating task for sure--let alone something written in archaic language. I like the narrative stream of the NLT for teaching them (they must be taught to crawl before they can be taught to walk or run). They will often look up in amazement saying, "I didn't know that the Bible says that!" All of the translations are fine for a read-through, although I find that certain key teachings are messed up in the English of the more modern translations. But, overall, the Bible that they will read is better than no Bible at all. I am somewhat sympathetic to the "KJV-only" enthusiasts, but, even the NLT is difficult to find in major fault.
 
Last edited:

seated with Christ

Well-Known Member
Getting young Christians to concentrate on the Bible is a frustrating task for sure--let alone something written in archaic language. I like the narrative stream of the NLT for teaching them (they must be taught to crawl before they can be taught to walk or run). They will often look up in amazement saying, "I didn't know that the Bible says that!" All of the translations are fine for a read-through, although I find that certain key teachings are messed up in the more modern translations. But, overall, the Bible that they will read is better than no Bible at all. I am somewhat sympathetic to the "KJV-only" enthusiasts, but, even the NLT is difficult to find in major fault.
I read this.
 
Last edited:

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
I have read a lot about the controversy--but I know from examination of a number of translations and versions, that there is only a tiny bit of differences between them--and those are trivial. I'm told that there is less than one half of one percent of variance. KJVO critics tend to concentrate on Westcott and Hort as the target of their criticism but no modern versions or translations rely on Westcott and Hort. I repeat, the Bible that one reads is better than any Bible that sits on a shelf.
 

Everlasting Life

Through Faith in Jesus
Calvin sounds like he was quite the bully for Jesus (but missed the act like Jesus part). :0_O

I grew up with KJV and gained some understanding. However, after salvation, I was given NLT-Life Application access then my growth in the Lord exploded. The notes and commentary are excellent.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
Calvin sounds like he was quite the bully for Jesus (but missed the act like Jesus part). :0_O

I grew up with KJV and gained some understanding. However, after salvation, I was given NLT-Life Application access then my growth in the Lord exploded. The notes and commentary are excellent.
Yes--many a Christian has had epiphanies from reading the notes contained in Life Application Bibles. Truth isn't terribly helpful, if it is not applied to practical living. The whole field of practical theology is dedicated to making the spiritual real in our lives. In 1 John, the inspired Apostle John, tells his readers that, if they claim they have no sin, they are not "living in the truth" (1 John 1:8-10). The Truth (stated in Romans 3:23 among other biblical statements of its kind) is that "...everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard" (NLT). Intellectual acknowledgement of the Truth, such as a dismissive, "Yes, yes--I know that I have sin in my life" is simply not life-changing in the way that a deep grief over our sins as well as our fallen sin nature, propel us forward in serving others in the Body, from the spiritual gifts granted by Our gracious Heavenly Father through His Spirit.

From the historical accounts, it doesn't sound as though Calvin ever repented of his frankly evil deeds. Sad.
 
Last edited:
Top