Who Started The Reformation?

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed his "The Ninety-five Theses" to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. This was indeed a historically significant event. However, many people think that Martin Luther started the Reformation but as you can see in Dave Hunt’s article the efforts to reform the church and keep it on the right track had been an going activity well before Martin Luther:
June 2000 Newsletter: A Great Betrayal

Hunt, Dave June 1, 2000

“...For 1,000 years before Luther, Europe saw persecutions, burnings and drownings of evangelical Christians who had never been Catholics and were not called Protestants. That term would only later be attached to those excommunicated from the Church for protesting its evils. A movement among priests and monks calling for a return to the Bible began many centuries before Luther. Priscillian, Bishop of Avila, could be called the first Reformer. Falsely accused of heresy, witchcraft, and immorality by a Synod in Bordeaux, France in A.D. 384 (seven of his writings which refute these charges have recently been discovered in the University of Wurzburg library in Germany), Priscillian and six others were beheaded at Trier in 385 and many martyrdoms followed. Jumping ahead to the late 1300s, John Wycliff, "morning star of the Reformation," championed the authority of the Scriptures, translated and published them in English and preached and wrote against the evils of the popes and transubstantiation. Jan Hus, a fervent Catholic priest and rector of Prague University, was influenced by Wycliff.


Excommunicated in 1410, Hus was burned at the stake as a "heretic" in 1415 for calling a corrupt church to holiness and the authority of God's Word.


Such early reformers set the stage for Martin Luther's Reformation. Luther himself said, "We are not the first to declare the papacy to be the kingdom of Antichrist, since for many years before us so many and so great men...have undertaken to express the same thing so clearly...." For example, in a full council at Rheims in the tenth century the Bishop of Orleans called the Pope the Antichrist. In the eleventh century Rome was denounced as "the See of Satan" by Berenger of Tours. The Waldensians identified the Pope as Antichrist in an 1100 treatise titled "The Noble Lesson." In 1206 an Albigensian conference indicted the Vatican as the woman "drunk with the blood of the martyrs," which she continued to prove...”

The complete article is at http://www.thebereancall.org/node/5704

"GOTCHA" Questions

"GOTCHA" Questions

Here's a Yes or No only question: "Do you still beat your wife?"

If you have never beaten your wife there is no way to answer it yes or no without looking like a wife-beater. Yes (I still beat my wife) or No (I don't beat my wife any more).

How about this one: Yes or No: "Is God so powerful that He can create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it?"

It's a silly question that doesn't even deserve consideration. However, my answer to that is "That would go against God's nature, why would He want to do that?"

“Either/Or” questions fit in the same category as “yes/no only” questions; they purposefully limit your ability to give a correct answer so that the other side can use the limitation in their favor.

Calvinists have their own GOTCHA questions to try to prove their doctrine of Predestination or Reformed Theology. They try to over complicate a simple issue by oversimplifying the issues. "GOTCHA" questions are carefully skewed to give a limited response.

GOTCHA questions are how the Scribes and Pharisees tried to trip up Jesus and the Apostles. Jesus and the Apostles never seemed to answer the questions the way the Scribes and Pharisees anticipated (as those who are responding to Calvinists challenges should not be coerced into doing either); rather they gave a reasoned response that basically rephrased the issue correctly.

Here are a few standard questions GOTCHA Calvinists ask:

a. Who gets the credit for your decision for Christ: You or God?
The questions should be “Who gets credit for your salvation?” and the answer is God because Jesus died and paid the price for my sin. Looking for credit for the decision on my part is silly as a decision is required. Getting "credit" is not the issue. Yet Calvinists will always claim that “accepting” is earning.” See further explanation in b.
***
b. If we can accept or reject God's salvation doesn't that mean that we had a hand in our own salvation?
That's like saying if I am drowning in a violent storm and a rescuer throws me a line that I get credit for the rescue for grabbing and holding on. I could have very well have said, “I can get back to shore on my own” and refused to take what was offered, drowning in the process.
Accepting and grabbing the line and holding tight is not “earning” or being the cause of the rescue, it is merely recognizing I have a choice or decision to make. If I refused the line the fault of my death would be mine… unless you're a Calvinist in which case it wouldn't be my fault because I had no choice (though Calvinists will still tell you it was indeed your fault even though you had no choice."

...And Peter answered Him and said, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water." So He said, "Come." And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus. But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!" And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him... Matthew 14:28-31

In Matthew 14:28-31 Peter did not walk on the water by his own power, but by the power from Jesus. Peter was doing fine until his doubt got the better of him. Peter was saved after he called out to Jesus. Jesus was there all the time and available.
***
c. Which came first, your decision or regeneration by God?
This is an either/or question that seeks to distract from the real issue. They go hand in hand and cannot be separated. God approaches everyone and everyone has the same decision to make, to accept God's gift or not:

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve... But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:15

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:16-1

But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Luke 13:3

***
d. Where did you get the desire and ability to come to Christ?
See c. above.
***
e. Where did your repentance and faith come from, you or God?
See c. above.
***
f. If we can accept or reject God's salvation doesn't that deny God's sovereignty?
No, it is the Calvinists saying that God can only accomplish His will by controlling every action which denies and limits God's sovereignty. Knowing that God accomplishes His will while allowing us free will shows how all powerful He really is.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28

***
Calvinists are asking the wrong questions purposely to create confusion and doubt. Here's the questions I ask instead, not as "GOTCHAS" but instead looking at the Word of God as a whole and not narrowly focused:

a. What did God create that was not good?

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. Genesis 1:31

***
b. Did God create sin?
Sin entered the world when man disobeyed God.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. Romans 5:12

***
c. Why did God create man?

God created man in his own image... Genesis 1:27

God created man for a relationship with Him. God did not say “I created some for a relationship and some merely to send to hell.” Man was created in God's image, therefore He would not have created sinful, evil, men, unless you're willing say that is God's image too. I'm not willing to do that.
***
d. Did God create sinful man?
Man was created in God's image, therefore He would not have created sinful, evil men, unless you're willing to say that is God's image too, something I'm not willing to do. The Bible tells us:

God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes. Ecclesiastes 7:29

Sin is a consequence to allowing free will, and because God loved man so much He provided for man's salvation.

You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil; Psalm 5:4
The LORD loves righteousness and justice Psalms 33:5

***
e. Do people ever do things that God tells them not to do? If so what is the result? Reward or punishment?
Death is the result of sin and disobedience and entered God's creation when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

"...Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?" Then the man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate." And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."" Genesis 3:11-13

This is what the LORD says...For they have forsaken me ...They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal--something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. Jeremiah 19:1-5

***
Some who follow Reformed Theology say “who are we to say what's good and what's not? If God makes us do something it is not for us to decide if it's good or not.” In effect they tell us if God caused us to do something (sin) then it must be a good thing....

God's Word tells us what is good and what is not and God does not contradict Himself. The purpose of the Bible is to record God's Word and plan for us. It is our instructions for living in this world.

Emotions

We feel and express various emotions because we were created in God's image. God is not impersonal. Being created in His image the emotions we experience are the same as emotions that God experiences. The Bible is clear that not only does He love us; He feels other emotions towards us. God gets disappointed and angry with us. God weeps with sorrow with us (and for us) and I'm sure He laughs with joy with us (and probably at us too).

It is my firm conviction that if it was predetermined who was going to hell and who was going to heaven and if all our actions were predetermined God's emotion towards us would be bored indifference. It's impossible to love, hate, feel sorrow for, or laugh with joy with someone who does what he does because of a preprogrammed action.

Maybe a good analogy would be when I use to play computer games they were fun, exiting and challenging. Then one day a friend showed me how to find secret cheat codes on the Internet that pretty much made me invincible and showed me every hidden thing I needed. That was pretty neat... for about 30 minutes. Then computer games just became a boring waste of time for me and I lost interest in them.

Luckily for us God is interested in us and our lives and wants to be involved. That interest and involvement goes beyond creating us, causing us to do this or that and then killing us off and sending us to a predetermined place (heaven or hell). God wants a relationship with us, that's precisely why He created us. He wants to help us and He wants us to desire and covet His help. God wants that from everyone, not just a certain few.

http://www.freewill-predestination.com/

April 4, 2006

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind James 1:5-6

Needless to say... if it had been predetermined we wouldn't need to ask... We're admonished to believe, meaning it is an action we must accomplish, not one we were preprogrammed to accomplish. It does not mean we had a hand in our own salvation. The act resulting in our salvation was accomplished by Jesus at the cross...

This passage tells me that we were created with the inherent desire to seek Him. Something Calvinists claim we have no possibility of ever desiring on our own. Well, thats true to a point, but God planted the desire in all of us.

Also notice James says "...ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." That tells me that God does indeed wants "all" to know Him and to accept Jesus. James does not say that God makes a distinction between mankind.

http://www.freewill-predestination.com

March 30, 2006

Part of the problem with predestination is how it creates two types of humans. The "haves" and the "never had a chance to haves." In a way this philosophy is much like the mentality of evolutionists, like Darwin, who for years believed that blacks were an inferior race and should not be accorded the same status as the better races. Those who are predestined for hell are clearly an inferior race, right? So, in the same way evolutionists use to look down their noses at inferior races so to can the Calvinists, albeit unintentional, comfortably look at the lost and say to themselves, "I have mine... too bad about this ignorant wretch. Thems the breaks... Let me just pass by on the other side on the path to get on my way..."

In their defense Calvinists will tell you we're commanded to show kindness and compassion to everyone, regardless if God has destined them for heaven or hell. We must be good Christians to all. That's nice; however it's a bit like pulling a drowning man out of a shark infested ocean and then twenty minutes later throwing him back in to the pack of sharks in the midst of a feeding frenzy. But notice they say we have to be kind to and compassionate to all. Hmmm, maybe "all" doesn't mean "all." Maybe "everyone" means "all of a subset." Perhaps we're just supposed to show compassion to the saved... It sure gets us off the hook if nothing else.

No, the Bible teaches us that God created man in his image. It does not say He created an A list and a B list, though that is how it ultimately plays out. Even the U.S. Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal" (I personally believe God had His hand on the creation of this document). To justify slavery some argued at the time that "all" didn't mean "all." "All" basically meant "all whites", who by the way must have been predestined to be white so don't feel too bad for the slaves...

http://www.freewill-predestination.com/

March 18, 2006

March 18, 2006Someone recently sent me a Calvinist web link and I randomly chose two places to read and found some interesting statements such as the following:

"Predestination is the doctrine that God alone is the One who chooses who is saved, that He ordains the means, the time, and the circumstances of salvation and that without His predestination, no one would ever be saved. In part this is because human nature is so completely corrupted by sin that no person is capable of choosing God unless God first regenerates that person. But any Bible student will soon discover there are verses which say God wants all men to be saved. For example, "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4, NIV). The question, then, is if God predestines only some to salvation, why are there verses that say God wants all to be saved? The answer is simple: The "all" are the Christians."

It's interesting that for Calvinists sometimes "all" only means "some" and specifically just "certain some ones". This conveniently allows them to dismiss all the verses that say God loves “everyone” and doesn't want “any” to perish. Yet they'll claim that Romans 3:23 is proof text for predestination.

…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... Romans 3:23

The plain fact is Romans 3:23 is saying there is no difference between men, we're all in the same boat headed for a fall. No where does it say “there are “saved alls” and there are “unsaved alls.”” There is just “all.”

For some reason when Calvinists quote Romans 3:23 "all" actually means “everyone”. But in other verses "all" doesn't mean "all."

Consider why Calvinists always jump on Romans 3:23 in their spiel. They claim that it shows we're all hopelessly sinners and could never make the choice to choose Christ but while the scriptures do say we're all sinners they don't bear out the Calvinist mantra that we couldn't have the desire or ability to seek God. The desire to know God is within us, after all we were created in God's image. Jesus gives us the power to overcome our sinful nature through His death: For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering" Romans 8:3. Regarding their claim that man is not capable of seeking or chosing God:

As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. Psalm 42:1-2

O God, you are my God, earnestly I seek you; my soul thirsts for you, my body longs for you, in a dry and weary land where there is no water Psalm 63:1

If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him. John 7:37-38

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Matthew 7:7-8

Again I say we have the desire in us, somewhere and that no matter our circumstance or location God is knowable. Paul wrote in Romans:

...since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20

Paul is saying that God is revealed and knowable in His creation. Paul also tells us that God's salvation is made available to all men.

“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men” -Titus 2:11

He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. John 1:7

We're told over and over we have a choice to make and those choices have consequences: Deuteronomy 30:19, Joshua 24:15, 1 King 18:21, Jeremiah 15:19, Jeremiah 29:13-14, Ezekiel 14:6, Ezekiel 33:11, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 7:7-8, Luke 7:50, Luke 13:3, Luke 13:3,John 3:17, John 12:48, John 16:27, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 17:27, Acts 20:21, Romans 3:22-25, Romans 10:9, Hebrews 11:6, James 1:21, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2 note: this is not an all inclusive list..

Then in Romans chapter 3 verse 24 continues…

...and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. Romans 3:24

Romans 3:24 is saying we are justified by Christ's sacrifice, it does not say specific individuals were pre-picked before time began. Though God predestined the plan for salvation through Jesus' sacrifice Christ's sacrifice happened after time began and is available for all.

This website had another interesting statement:

"I would like to introduce a couple of terms: Arminianism and Calvinism. Essentially, Arminianism states that man is able, by his own free will, to choose or reject God and that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived. Calvinism states that it is God alone who chooses who is saved, not man, and that Jesus died only for the Christians."

Died only for the Christians? Well, actually you don't become a Christian until you accept Jesus.

Jesus died for sinners, not Christians. If we were already Christians Jesus wouldn't have needed to die for our sins... I guess this is another case where "all" doen't mean "all". I guess we can chuck John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him (not just "Christians" chosen before time began) shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:16-17

Anyway, if it was determined from the begining who would go to hell and who wouldn't then we don't need a savior, Jesus, God could have made what He already determined to happen without sacrificing His son.

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

http://www.freewill-predestination.com

Firefighter

I keep running across scores of scripture that tells us we must do something, or risk the consequences. One such passage is from 1 John:

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9

We have to (willingly) confess our sins. That is an action on our part. John tells us the result is Jesus, being faithful and just, will forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. Nowhere does John say we hand a hand in our being forgiven and purified by confessing our sins. Neither does John indicate that the reason we confess our sins is because God forced us to…

Whenever a Calvinist is defending their position on predestination they always stick with the mantra that if an individual has the free will to accept God's gift of salvation that somehow that means that individual either earned his salvation or somehow had a hand in it. I keep coming back with “accepting is not earning."

If I'm trapped in a burning building and a fireman risks his life to save me and I agree to go with him, rather than resist or run further into the flames, that fireman saved me. The fact that I willingly went with him doesn't mean I had a hand in saving myself. I was the one who got myself in the wrong place at the wrong time, but it was still the fireman who saved me.

I've yet to read the headline that reads, “Trapped man saves self from deadly fire by agreeing to leave with the firefighter who battled the flames to reach him!”

http://freewill-predestination.com/

Mudslinging

While I disagree with John Calvin on the issue of predestination I have never said or wrote anything disparaging about him nor have I tried to misrepresent anything he said or wrote.

Just as one must consider the scripture as a whole in coming to a conclusion on free will or predestination a person must consider a persons whole background and complete body of writings before condemning them.

In reading various Reformed Theology websites I have noticed that many of them attack various people who believe in free will. I've seen sites that claimed Billy Graham was out of the Christian mainstream and was a heretic. Others try to discredit John Wesley.

It is true one can pull certain actions and statements and play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey. If I wanted to play by the same rule I could use the following two examples to trash John Calvin and Martin Luther:

John Calvin wrote to King Henry VIII recommending that the Anabaptists be burned as an example to other Englishmen: 'It is far better that two or three be burned than thousands perish in Hell.'"
Source:Estep, William R., Renaissance & Reformation (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986), 241

Of Martin Luther we are told, "His attitude to Anabaptism was molded by a succession of unfortunate events, and he turned from toleration through banishment to the death penalty for sedition and for 'blasphemy' (a term which in practice was largely equated with what hitherto had been called heresy.")
Source: Littell, Franklin H., The Origins of Sectarian Protestantism (New York: The Macmillan Company)

Apparently John Calvin did believe in free will since he recommended to King Henry VIII that burning a few people at the stake would keep other Englishmen on the straight and narrow. Was John Calvin being guided by the Holy Spirit when he had people burned at the stake?

The fact that such a large body of people, much less any individual, argues so intensely for the case of predestination shows that they really do not believe in it. They do believe given the facts people do have a choice to make.

What is an Anabaptist? From Merriam-Webster Dictionary: A member of a radical movement of the 16th-century Reformation that viewed baptism solely as an external witness to a believer's conscious profession of faith, rejected infant baptism...

Conclusion: Calvin's theology is not 100% trustworthy. However, I am honest enough to recognize that despite these positions they don't represent everything or nullify everything Calvin and Luther stood for.

Again many in Reformed Theology attempt to destroy those who believe in free will by misrepresenting them, sometimes in other areas. For example. Lorraine Boettner tries to discredit John Wesley by claiming Wesley "was a believer in witchcraft."

Loraine Boettner, author of The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination on page 426 had this to say of John Wesley, "It should be said at this point that Wesley was a believer in witchcraft. Failure to believe in witches was looked upon by him as a concession to infidels and rationalists… In his Journal we read this report of a girl who was subject to fits: 'When old Doctor Alexander was asked what her disorder was, he answered, 'It is what formerly they would have called being bewitched.' And why should they not call it so now? Because the infidels have hooted it out of the world; and the complaisant Christians, in large number, have joined them in their cry.'"

Other Calvinists have jumped on the "John Wesley believed in witchcraft" bandwagon. Many Calvinist websites state, "In his Journal, Wesley bemoaned the decline of superstition, the advance of human thought and the more peaceable reign of Christ on the earth, in the following words: "It is true likewise, that the English in general, and, indeed, most of the men of learning in Europe, have given up all accounts of witches and apparitions as mere wives' fables. I am sorry for it… The giving up of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible!""

OK, so John Wesley believed in witchcraft. Believing and condoning are not the same. I'm pretty certain both John Calvin and Martin Luther believed in witchcraft as well. Like Wesley, they believed it existed and was dangerous.

As I said, John Wesley was neither condoning nor encouraging witchcraft. However, Wesley did believe that witchcraft was in the world and to deny it would deny the existence of evil and of Satan. I have seen surveys by Barna that show a significant number of Christians today, including many preachers, do not believe in a literal Satan or hell. That is what concerned Wesley.

In Wesley's Commentary on the Bible every reference to witchcraft, while emphasizing that it is real and exists, condemned its practice. The Calvinists link of John Wesley to witchcraft is nothing more than an effort to discredit John Wesley for his belief in free will.

Predestination Free Will http://www.freewill-predestination.com/

John Calvin's methods

How should a heretic or any false teacher be dealt with Biblically? We can get some insight by looking at John Calvin's actions from a Biblical perspective such as in Paul's letter to Titus about the qualifications for eldership in the church:

"He [the elder] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach -- and that for the sake of dishonest gain" (Titus 1:9-11).

A false teacher should be "silenced," not by having him killed, but by refuting him with Scripture.

The following is intended to demonstrate that Calvin was not infallible and his words and deeds bear scrutiny. Jesus said you will recognize people by their fruit (Matt 7:20) and no good tree bears bad fruit (Luke 6:23).

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Galatians 5:22-23

In 1547 an outspoken Libertine (atheist) Jacques Gruet, was beheaded thanks to John Calvin's efforts.

In 1551 fellow Reformer Jerome Bolsec was banished from Geneva (and eventually from many other cities influenced by Calvin) when he made the mistake of publicly challenging Calvin's teaching on predestination, a doctrine Bolsec and many other Reformers, found morally repugnant. He was not banished because he was wrong, in fact Bolsec was very convincing, but for the sake of peace in the city and to protect John Calvin's reputation.

Lest you think Bolsec got off easy consider what banishment meant. Not only did he have to avoid areas influenced by Calvin but he also had to avoid Catholic areas. Basically Bolsec was “a man without a country.”

In 1553 John Calvin was instrumental in having Michael Servetus sentenced to death, burned at the stake, for doctrinal heresies. Admittedly Servetus was on the run from the Catholic Church having been excommunicated and sentenced to death by them and he did have heretical ideas.

One of Servetus' heretical ideas that Calvin vehemently opposed was Servetus' rejection of infant baptism. So where does Reformed Theology Churches stand on that issue today?

In 13 February 1546, a few years before Servetus was burned at the stake, John Calvin wrote to his friend, Farel, "If he comes here, if my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive".

Later, during Servetus' trial in 1553 Calvin wrote, "I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty."

For a little over two months, from the time Servetus was arrested until his execution, Servetus was kept "... in an atrocious dungeon with no light or heat, little food, and no sanitary facilities."

Then there's the time John Calvin wrote to the King of England, Henry VIII, suggesting that by burning two or three people the King could save thousands from hell.

That looks similar to how Islam has been spread from its beginning. However, the early Christian church was spread by love and example.

Calvin's decisions to have people burned at the stake are understandably viewed by Reformed Theology as an attempt "to confirm his image as an intolerant authoritarian" and they rationalize his actions this way:

...Despite the fact that religious toleration did not become a popular conviction until at least two hundred years later, and that what was done in Geneva was done virtually everywhere else in Europe on a much grander scale...

Using that logic is like saying the Apostles should have converted people by crucifixion because that was the way things were done at the time. Pre-Paul protected his faith in the same manner as Calvin, but once He became a follower in Christ his methods changed drastically. The “everybody else is doing it” argument never worked on my parents when I was growing up. Neither does it work for Christ. The Bible tells is we're to be in the world, not of the world.

Never mind that this was not the way early Christianity was spread... I wonder what the scriptural justification was that Calvin used?

"We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he commands is a liar and the truth is not in him" 1 John 2:3-4.

Predestination and Free will
http://www.freewill-predestination.com/