William F. Buckley once asked, “What scruples about human beings did Stalin have that Hitler didn’t? Anything?” Likewise, what scruples about human beings did John Calvin have that the popes didn’t?
For the record, I am not a "Calvin-hater."
John Calvin may have helped reform some of the erroneous teachings and beliefs of the Catholic system, but he also failed to grasp many of the teachings of Christ and the New Testament. If he understood them, then he failed to act upon them. Calvin's Geneva was no better than the Pope's Rome. Both targeted and slaughtered the Anabaptists. John Calvin was part of the death of Michael Servetus. Any Calvinists who deny such should try educating themselves and reading up on church history. Here are a couple of Calvin's quotes with regard to Servetus.
But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come [to Geneva], I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail.
I hope that Servetus will be condemned to death, but I desire that he should be spared the cruelty of the punishment [of fire].
Servetus suffered the penalty due his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies? Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.
Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church.
Calvin apparently lacked humility and was not willing to admit he had done wrong and repent. Read through the New Testament and find me a single piece of Scripture that supports Calvin's attitude and behaviour. His actions were straight out of the Old Testament. Calvin basically became his own Pope, and Reformed individuals today tend to treat him as such. Calvin's contemporary, Sebastian Castellio, was correct:
If Christ himself came to Geneva, he would be crucified. For Geneva is not a place of Christian liberty. It is ruled by a new pope, but one who burns men alive while the pope at Rome at least strangles them first.
The Reformers did a lot of good for the church, but they also did a lot of ill. They also failed to correct many things that desperately needed correction (and still do). Why did their reform only go back as far as the 300's, and looking to corrupt individuals such as Augustine? Augustine was a disciple of Ambrose, and heavily influenced by Cyprian, who was a sacramentalist. He was a Platonist who platonized and re-wrote Christianity as the religion of the Roman State. He was the impetus that accommodated Christianity to the Constantinian Imperial System. The beliefs of the Catholic system were found in embryonic form in the teachings of Augustine: prayer to the dead, belief in Purgatory, the efficacy of relics, baptismal regeneration, the re-sacrifice of the body of the Lord in the Mass, the authority of the Church outside of whose Sacraments there can be no salvation, the Divine inspiration of the Apocrypha, etc. He even believed that it was legitimate to use violence against your critics and adversaries. This is who John Calvin looked up to. Why did the Reformers not go all the way back to the apostolic era and the early church for a complete reform?
Because they came out of the Catholic system, in their reform they still retained aspects of Catholicism. This is why the church always needs to be reforming and conforming to the Scriptures. Not to man's traditions, and not to the world's standards and ideologies. The argument that Calvin was "a man of his times" is a pathetic and lame argument. Christians are always to be counter-cultural.
It is funny. Calvinists have accused me of being "abrasive," yet apparently have not bothered to read anything from their beloved Calvin. If you attempt to bring up Calvin's behaviour, their argument is, "That's different! He was called to that position." Says who?!? How do you know I am not called to a certain position? Who does the calling? Certainly not the church! Read my article God's Ordination Requires Not Approval of Men. Calvin treated his critics with utter contempt, calling them ‘pigs,’ asses,’ ‘riffraff,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘idiots,’ and ‘stinking beasts.’ Against the Anabaptist leader, Menno Simons, Calvin said, "Nothing could be prouder, nothing more impudent than this donkey." My words directed toward false teachings are tame by comparison with John Calvin's, and yet certain people want to hang me.
John Calvin may have been a godly man, but he was not perfect, he was not without sin, and he was not Jesus. People need to stop defending their favourite heroes out of sheer ignorance and admit that they had flaws. As I said, I am not a "Calvin-hater." I am a realist. As great a preacher as Charles Spurgeon was, he even had issues. He was not perfect. None of our heroes are. We do a great disservice by pretending that they were or getting defensive when someone points out one of their flaws. Foolishly, people tend to take attacks against their heroes as attacks against themselves. That is a proud ego at work.
When people quote extensively from one individual, such as John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, or John MacArthur, especially at the expense of the Bible, or they get offended when an ill word is spoken about them, it shows who their god is. They idolize these men, which is idolatry. If a quote helps explain something better, that is fine, but your primary source of quoting should come from Scripture. It is the hearing of God's Word that brings about faith and repentance. Not the words of Calvin, Spurgeon, or MacArthur!