The issue is, "Did John Calvin sanction the burning of Michael Servetus?" The issue is not, "John Calvin sanctioned the burning of Servetus. Who cares, since David killed Uriah and Paul helped stone Steven."
No sir, this is NOT the issue, for you have an evil agenda you are promoting which you have clearly stated on several occasions. The fact that Michael Servetus was found guilty in a court of law, a court which John Calvin had no place, and then executed according to that country's law, of which John Calvin had no actual part, relieves John Calvin of your deceitful charges against him, that he committed some gross sin because he agreed that Servetus got a fair trial and received a just punishment for his sin, even though he tried to change the method of his execution to something other than burning at the stake.

The issue YOU are trying to force upon us is whether or not John Calvin, by agreeing to the execution, demonstrated "bad fruit", which you have defined in unbiblical and indefensible terms. And if that be true, according to your fallacious definition, then the Holy Spirit did not dwell within him and further that anything he wrote from that point on is spurious and should be rejected out of hand. Not only is your position unwarranted, it is scandalous and wicked at its core.

I charge you with being duplicitous and being in league with the Accuser of the brethren. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />

What you need most is not to hear if John Calvin ever repented of some alleged sin but deliverance of this wickedness which controls your spirit.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]