Today marks the anniversary of the death of Michael Servetus.

More pointedly, his death has become THE blot on the reputation of John Calvin who was falsely blamed for it as the "tyrant of Geneva." One need take into account several factors:

* The sensibilities of the 16th century were quite different from those prevalent today. Atttacks on the trinity were taken rather seriously back then as endangering the public order, tempting weak persons into soul destroying damnable heresy, and a challenge to the political structures of society.
* Servetus was condemned to death by the Roman Catholics prior to his ill-fated visit to Geneva.
* Calvin was an "expert witness" in the trial, not the one entrusted with the authority of the sword. He was not even granted bourgois status in Geneva until 1559 (6 years after Servetus' death) and his popularity was at a particularly low ebb in 1553 when Servetus was put on trial.
* The Council sought the opinion of surrounding cantons, receiving the unanimous recommendation to execute Servetus.
* Everyone on all sides in Calvin's day agreed with the execution.
* During an era when hundreds of people were executed in Germany and religious atrocities were not uncommon (cf. Peasants' War in 1525 and the Münster Rebellion of January 1534), Calvin's quarter century combined tenure in Geneva was marked by all of ONE religious execution . . . Servetus (banishment was more common, I count the case of Jacques Gruet as civil, not religious).
* Calvin and the Genevan ministers petitioned the court to mitigate the sentence of Servetus by a more humane method of execution than burning. They were denied.
* Calvin made several efforts to persuade Servetus to repent.

Nevertheless, since the death of Servetus on October 27, 1553, Calvin has been tarred by historians and in the popular imagination as a cruel and bloodthirsty tyrant. NOT true. Considering the weight of historical opprobrium piled on Calvin since then in the popular mind, one might argue about who really "got burned" by the death of Servetus.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I should change my avatar in honor of it!!!!

__________________
MarieP
Reformed Baptist Church
Louisville, KY

"I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies and of all the truth which You have shown Your servant" (Gen. 32:10)

I have had Pastors tell me that is why John Calvin will not be in Heaven according to 1 John 3:15, Rev. 22:15.

__________________
John Komenda
Symphony Bible Church
Conservative Baptist
Buffalo, New York

Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear. Is.65:24 ESV

Don't you mean "Happy 6-point Calvinist Day"?

__________________
Seth Stark
Member, Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

It should be "Sad Michael Servetus Day". I'm pretty sure he wasn't happy on this day way back when.

__________________
Jonathan
Audio Engineer
Reformed Anabaptist
Ohio

Moroni's magical glasses of proper interpretation:

Do you mean this kind of "Six Point Calvinist"???

Servetus was an incorrigible heretic, blasphemer of God and His ministers, and received a just punishment.

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."

quote by Michael Servetus

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).

__________________
Ewen
1689 LBCF
Assemblies of God Bible College
Singapore

I suppose Benny Hinn and Salman Rushdie could hide out together.

If we began killing heretics, this would do wonders for the Great Commission.

Good thing the Christian Church is united and there is no longer any heresy to confront.

__________________
Todd
18 Mile Baptist
La Grange, KY

Some of the points are irrelevant to whether or not his action was right or wrong:

The "sensibilities of the day" don't determine whether it was right or wrong.

The Roman Catholics have been wrong before.

This is a good point.

Another good point.

Again, their opinions don't make the action right or wrong.

Comparing Calvin to contemporaries rather than the standard of good isn't particularly helpful either.

Another good point.

Yet another good point.

Not to defend Servetus or anything--but using fallacious arguments like those doesn't help Calvin's case.

Are you saying that you believe Calvin et. al could not defend the doctrine of the Trinity against Servetus? or Are you saying that after they have defended such they should not be able to prevent him from teaching such?

CT

-----Added 10/27/2009 at 12:20:19 EST-----

One thing you must remember, no one cared what Servetus believed. They cared about what he was willing to spread and teach publicly.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Precisely. This is the point that needs to be most understood; the civil arm was not used to "make people believe Christianity;" it was used to quell those notorious heretics who were poisoning the state with their public teachings. Whether one agrees with this role of the christian Civil Magistrate or not, this point must be understood lest we continue to caricature the actions of our predecessors.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I am saying that the Gospel is not promoted by the burning of heretics and Servetus will always be a stain upon Christianity and used against both Calvin and us.

I also believe that heretic-burning ranks up there with witch-burnings as evidence that the Reformers were children of their time.

Finally, I am glad that church and state are not merged in such a way that witches, heretics and quakers are still punished by the civil sword for ecclesiastical offenses.

As we attempt to show the love of Christ to all the people-groups of the world, we do not want to dominate through governmental power, or oppress any of the unbelievers, but we want to serve and suffer for the Gospel rather than eliminate unbelief through the power of the sword.



John F. Fulton, Michael Servetus Humanist and Martyr (Herbert Reichner, 1953), asserts that the Reformers used half-green wood for the funeral pyre.

Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962), p. 328, speaks of the inhumane conditions of Servetus' imprisonment prior to his execution.

-----Added 10/27/2009 at 12:31:58 EST-----

Servetus' errors had to do with the Trinity.

Do reformed churches merely lack resolve today, because we have a whole lotta Arians and anti-Trinitarians whom we have never tried to execute?

Would any of you be willing to submit that proposal to Congress?

This has nothing to do with it; nor does it mean any churches lack any resolve. Further:

1.) The *church* didn't execute anyone.
2.) No, I would not be willing to submit a proposal to Congress (if I were a congressman) for that; simply because, we are not a Christian Republic which has covenanted. So to make laws for the maintenance and preservation of a religion which has not even been established does not even make logical sense.
3.) Even those nations which did have such laws only had them after the spiritual work of advancing the gospel had produced a Christian people. A people were never coerced by the State to the Christian religion.

Burning people is not justice. We have no new testament warrant to burn people who teach false teaching. And neither does a governing authority. If that is the plumb line then I deserve to have been burned too. And likely most people on this board. If they didn't want him there they should have just kicked him out. And if they looked around they could have found many more people to burn. Seriously were there no people committing adultery in Geneva? No thief's? No one who believed in baptism by immersion? Why not just drowned them too? Should we just burn all people who are in the UPC? There is no reason to make statements like this.

__________________
Aaron Josh Wright
Deerbrook Baptist Church, Humble Tx
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary

Burning of heretics lest they recant or leave seems to be a form of coercion.

The coercion has to do with what one teaches publically not what one believes. If one didn't want to be a Christian, then alright.

CT

Respectfully, sir, whether you think Geneva's actions were right or wrong, please read a bit of history on the subject so that you can base your sweeping condemnation on what actually happened instead of upon fabrications of men's minds. Even this very thread contains information which show that your statements have nothing to do with what actually happened.

The points of contention were original sin, infant baptism, and the Trinity. They were theological issues that were being discussed.

And.... is this supposed to be a refutation of my previous post? My point is that this was not 1984.

Secondly, if you did not like the laws of the nation, you could find another nation that was run according to how you wished to see it run.

CT

I wasn't trying to make tight "logical" arguments, valid or fallacious. My point was to provide some historical perspective on the mitigating factors. The environment of 16th century civil practice WAS much different from our own. The prevailing "sensibilities" of the 16th century were quite different from our day. Just as today our sensibilities flag ethnic jokes as utterly inappropriate whereas they were considered "normal" a few decades ago, the 16th century understanding of debate (i.e., filled with pro forma insults and scatological language) is shockingly different from our own, as was their medical practice, as was their jurisprudence respecting heresy. As Prufrock noted, heresy was deemed a crime against the state.

My reference to Roman Catholic condemnation of Servetus was not an appeal to the authority and infallibility of Rome. It was rather an attempt to mute the standard complaint that Calvin, the "tyrant of Geneva" went on a tear and killed Servetus in some rogue act of idiosyncratic anger. EVERYONE, including the other Swiss Cantons and even the Romanists had believed him worthy of death. He had been sentenced to death in France, escaped prison, and made his way to Geneva. The French petitioned Geneva for extradiction so that they might execute him. My point was that not only did Geneva not act alone or unbecomingly, the "whole world" had declared a bounty on Servetus' head, EVEN the Roman Catholics.

Pretty much everyone today (on all sides) says that it was "wrong" to execute Servetus. My points were not about rightness or wrongness, just providing context and mitigation.

1. Calvin didn't "do" it, Geneva did.
2. In that day where heresy was a crime against the state, the whole of Christendom would have agreed with the action. The comparison with the prevailing patterns may not impress you, but it does me. In an age when hundreds were put to death in Germany, France, and Spain, it is noteworthy that the impact of the Reformation in Geneva was that only ONE man was executed in a quarter of a century for religious reasons. It points to an unusually "humane" jurisprudence contrary to the secular misrepresentations of "Calvin's Geneva."

If you want to judge the past by contemporary standards, you might as well excoriate civil magistrates and Christian ministers for the dangerous practice of blood letting through leeches, which was standard "medical" practice in a former age.

In a battle of emotions and impressions, mitigating circumstances (such as the universal practice of the day) DO count as helping rehabilitate Mr. Calvin's reputation, IMO.

Yet again -- there was not just a general, free-for all burning of anyone who believes something contrary to the Christian faith. Servetus was publicly teaching and proclaiming things contrary to the laws of the state.

Coercing select people into a cessation of publicly teaching certain things is not the same as coercing anyone to be a Christian. If one cannot see the difference between these two things, then any conversation on the topic will be fruitless. The state cannot make me esteem all races alike (not to worry -- of course, I do!); but it can prohibit me from publicly spreading teachings that a particular race is, in itself, inferior.

This shouldn't have happened. I certainly don't blame Calvin for it though.

__________________
Andrew Thornquist My Photo Album
Calvinistic Baptist
Ukiah, California
To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!

The laws of the State were closely aligned with the teachings of the church. There was not a "wall of separation" for sure.

Calvin was also part of the fixture of the Geneva city gov't. He helped with city planning, social welfare, and even sanitation. Church and State were not separate but mixed, such that what the church wanted done, the government would often do.

Yes, Calvin was not the prosecuting attorney.

He was, however, consenting to Servetus' death, though he appeared to have tried to persuade Servetus in private. During the trial, however, Calvin did write, ""I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty." (Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962).


When church and state are intermingled, then a heretic also becomes a traitor to one's community. This happens all the time among Muslims in Muslim-States.

The environment of the Reformation led to theocratic thinking, which fueled the false notion that the civil sword out to punish ecclesiastical heretics.

Ironically, on this date in 1659, Quakers William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson were executed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for their religious beliefs. Massachusetts had a law forbidding Quakers in the colony under penalty of death.

__________________
Tom Albrecht
Elder, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"When I find the time, I'm going to write the social history of bourbon."

Yes, and in 1626 Felix Manz was arrested in Zurich and on January 5 1527 was executed by drowning. Later the same year Conrad Grebel was also imprisoned and died the following year from the black plague. Two years later George Blaurock was tortured to death by burning in Italy.

An unhealthy close relationship between church and state led to a number of Reformation-era incidents of "heretics" being killed for ecclesiastical and theological offenses. Some of the Puritans carried this over to the New World, but it did not stick.

So you believe what a person teaches has no effect on the actions in a state/country so the state should not be involved in such matters?

My view is that church and state cannot be separated and if one thinks that one has accomplished such, they are just deluding themselves.

"We will just teach that one should sacrifice their children to Molech to appease the gods, but the state should not be concerned".

CT

Maybe this is turning into a theonomy thread.


I am glad for the 1788 Revision of the Westminster Confession.

One thing that I think this whole situation proves is that we aren't (and shouldn't be) followers of Calvin (even though I love the work of Calvin), but of Christ. Personally, I come from an Arminian background and I can say that it wasn't John Calvin who convicted me of the Doctrines of Grace and what we would term "Reformed theology", rather it was the God the Holy Spirit speaking through His Word that brought me to, what I believe, a more proper understanding of who God is.

I'm not here to say that Calvin hasn't been slandered by those who oppose his theology, but I am saying that I'm thankful (as I'm sure everyone here is) that my salvation was secured by Jesus Christ and not by any other man!

__________________
Spencer Snow
Crosspoint Fellowship
Joplin, MO

Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord

Romans 7:24-25

It is not a Theonomy thread, it's a Theocracy thread.

CT

Aaron,

Having once been a baptist myself, I understand your vantage point.

However, we likewise have no New Testament warrant for the civil magistrate to neglect punishing offenses against the First Table.

Pergy, I don't deny that Calvin consented to the execution nor do I maintain that it was the right thing to do.

However, it doesn't seem that you have given enough weight to the fact that in 1553, Calvin was at the nadir of his popularity. Not only was he NOT a citizen, he was roundly scorned, dogs were named after him, people made fun of him and interrupted his preaching with "rude" biological sounds.

I'm offended at a lot of things about the 16th century: ridiculously personal attacks in debate, medical and surgical practices that contributed to the death rather than the healing of persons, religious wars, the acceptance of torture of prisoners, etc. But, if we are going to fault the spirit of the times, let's do so without attaching all of the blame to one individual who had a relatively incidental role in the proceedings.

In developing the legacy of Calvin, this does NOT deserve the role it plays in the popular historiography of Calvin.

Thank you for the clarification and also for your good thoughts. I am now bowing out of this particular discussion since I have made my point.

My summmary:

Calvin was not the prosecuting attorney in Geneva. He even tried to persuade Servetus privately. If someone is guilty for Servetus' death, it would be the city council mainly.

However, the church and state back then were dangerously close. They were childen of their age. Whether Calvin's teaching helped ameliorate this climate of the age or helped perpetuate this climate is debatable. He did consent to Servetus' death.

But, Servetus, according to history was the ONLY heretic killed in Geneva while scores were killed elsewhere, and this may prove Calvin's generosity in comparison. However, this incident will blacken the eye of Calvinisits and Protestantism until the Second Coming and I would assert again that I am glad for the 1788 Revision and I do not believe that civil gov't ought to punish theological offenders, nor should we try to influence governmental laws to reflect sectarian interests.

I think everyone should also put into consideration the fact that the Genevan Council did not come up with the decision to burn Servetus at the stake by themselves. John T. Mcneill in The History and Character of Calvinism states:

Just ourt of curiosity, what in the 1788 revision would prevent/forbid the state from lawfully executing a heretic against the Christian religion?

The OPC web site, in an article by Dr Hart, explains the substance of the revisions in 1789:

No doubt a secular faith required this man to make such a blunder. The Federal government was forbidded from establishing any manifestation of the Christian religion, because the states had already done so. All 13 colonies had either established state churches or had established Christianity as the state religion without reference to any particular denomination being established.

The magistrate was still defined as the nursing father of the Church.

Cheers,

Adam

Hey, Pergamum.

While I appreciate Dr. Hart's personal analysis, that doesn't really answer my question. And I think he is missing something significant.

In particular, this:
The language that Dr. Hart quotes was in the original 1646 WCF. It was not a novelty to the American revision. In its context, it is simply speaking about differences among Christian sects. I.e., “among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.”

Note also the presence and placement of the word “pretense.” The burden of the magistrate is that he should not use religion or lack thereof as some arbitrary criteria for punishment. But that does not prevent the magistrate from exercising his legitimate duty to enforce just laws related to all of the Ten Commandments, including public heresy.

So my question stands regarding the alleged superiority in the 1788 revision in that matter at hand.