The Burning of Michael Servetus

[Aseity]

Was John Calvin a tyrant? Was he a wicked evil sinner like you and me? Was John Calvin saved by God's wonderful magnificent awesome grace alone, like you and me? Was John Calvin a God fearing man like you and me? Was John Calvin a devil? Was John Calvin a man who loved God deeply and had a passion and compassion for lost souls? Did John Cavin make mistakes? Did he sin like you and me? Was John Calvin "BORN AGAIN?"

Emanuel Stickelberger's Calvin

An Authentic Account of the Life & Ministry of John Calvin

Introduction

There is an obvious place for a compact study of John Calvin for the English reader, and this has been provided by Dr. David Gelzer's translation of this admirable work from the pen of Emanuel Stickelberger, one of Switzerland's most distinguished men of letters of the present day. Dr. Stickelberger's writing, bears the hallmark of authenticity. Sanity of judgment and vitality of style and spirit stand out against the excellent, though unobtrusive, background of serious scholarship. The author, it is clear, not only knows his subject, but his heart is in it, with the result that a convincing portrait is presented of one of the greatest leaders the Christian Church has ever had.

This British edition appears in the year (1959) which marks both the 450th anniversary of Calvin's birth and the fourth centenary of the publication of the final edition of his greatest literary work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion. The faithful picture of the famous Reformer given in the pages of this volume will help to dispel those prejudices and misconceptions which so obstinately attach themselves to the name of John Calvin, and will also, it is to be hoped, stimulate many to discover and be enriched by the gold-mine of the Institutes, in which we still possess the essence of the real Calvin.

Philip Hughes
http://www.whatloveisthis.com/stickelberger.html

Blinded By Tradition
An Open Letter to Dave Hunt
James R. White

A Response to James White
Dave Hunt

The Charge of Elitism
A Response to Dave Hunt
James R. White
_________________________

Dave Hunt and "Calvinism"
Setting the Record Straight, Part 1
A Calvinist Friend

A Response to a Calvinist Friend
Dave Hunt

Dave Hunt and "Calvinism"
Setting the Record Straight, Part 2
A Calvinist Friend

A Non-Calvinist Replies to
Dave Hunt's Response
from The Dialogue Box

Calvinism's Alleged Roman Catholic Connection
A Refutation of Dave Hunt
A Calvinist Friend
_________________________

What Love Is This?
A Biblical Critique
rob schläpfer

A Retraction & Apology
rob schläpfer
_________________________

My Song Is Love Unknown
A Response to Dave Hunt
Colin Smith (aka The Silly Brit)

The Potter's Freedom
The Vital Issue
James White

Distorting the Love of God
Common Errors in Modern Evangelicalism
D. A. Carson

The Free Offer of the Gospel
A Defense of Orthodox Calvinism
John Murray

Calvin's Controversies
The literary style of sixteenth
century polemical writings
Richard Gamble
_________________________

http://www.whatloveisthis.com/home.html

edited to put a question mark ? at the end of "Was John Calvin a Devil." I forgot. Sorry about that, mans errancy and fallibility at work there! God help me!

[Robyn Banks]

Was John Calvin a devil.

A reference to Castellio's remark on the burning of Servetus?Castellio: “Do you, Christ, command and approve these things… If you, Christ, do these things, or command them to be done, what is left for the devil?”
Between 1542 and 1546, 58 persons were condemned to death in Geneva, including 34 for practising “witchcraft”.

Robyn Banks

[Aseity]

A reference to Castellio's remark on the burning of Servetus?Castellio: “Do you, Christ, command and approve these things… If you, Christ, do these things, or command them to be done, what is left for the devil?”
Between 1542 and 1546, 58 persons were condemned to death in Geneva, including 34 for practising “witchcraft”.

Robyn Banks


I wonder what type of "witchcraft" all the babies inside their mothers wombs are condemned to death for?

Casting an *unwanted spell?*

[Robyn Banks]

I wonder what type of "witchcraft" all the babies inside their mothers wombs are condemned to death for?

Casting an *unwanted spell?*

Is this the 'two wrongs make a right' argument?

:shrug: :hrm:

[Aseity]

Is this the 'two wrongs make a right' argument?

:shrug: :hrm:


No.

Wrongs are wrong no matter how many wrongs there are. What was Legal in Geneva back then is not legal there now. What is legal here now was not legal back then.

Burning heretics and witches back then was prescribed by Law. Now it is not.

Aborting babies in their mothers wombs back then was forbidden by Law and counted as murder. Today it is legal and is not counted as murder.

We live in the Dark Ages once again. A gross darkness covers and governs the earth. Can you not see?

[rmwilliamsjr]

No.

Wrongs are wrong no matter how many wrongs there are. What was Legal in Geneva back then is not legal there now. What is legal here now was not legal back then.

Burning heretics and witches back then was prescribed by Law. Now it is not.

Aborting babies in their mothers wombs back then was forbidden by Law and counted as murder. Today it is legal and is not counted as murder.

We live in the Dark Ages once again. A gross darkness covers and governs the earth. Can you not see?

least you get to comfortable with the division of rational 20th century and irrational 16th.

Geneva executed Servetus because he denied the fundamental glue that held society together. He denied the fundamental myths that held that culture together.

and the U.S. executed Joe Hill, Sacco and Vanzetti, and the Rosenburgs for exactly the same reason. denial of the fundamental central themes that bind that society together. heretics, traitors the same thing, just different centuries.

[Robyn Banks]

Wrongs are wrong no matter how many wrongs there are.

So do you agree with Castellio, when he spoke of Calvin killing people who disagreed with his theology?“Do you, Christ, command and approve these things… If you, Christ, do these things, or command them to be done, what is left for the devil?”

Robyn Banks

[Aseity]

So do you agree with Castellio, when he spoke of Calvin killing people who disagreed with his theology?“Do you, Christ, command and approve these things… If you, Christ, do these things, or command them to be done, what is left for the devil?”

Robyn Banks


Go back to the start of this thread and read this: http://www.whatloveisthis.com/stickelberger.html which is posted there, slowly and carefully and thoughtfully.

Then get back to me regarding what is written in there.

You are doing the devils work, same as Castiellio, you wear his same mantle.

You sir, are the cause of many going to hell and unless you repent, you will be going there too.

[Robyn Banks]

Go back to the start of this thread and read this: http://www.whatloveisthis.com/stickelberger.html which is posted there, slowly and carefully and thoughtfully.

No. If you have something to say, say it in this thread.

And stop avoiding my question.




You sir, are the cause of many going to hell and unless you repent, you will be going there too.

So - to answer my question - do you agree with Castellio, when he spoke of Calvin killing people who disagreed with his theology?“Do you, Christ, command and approve these things… If you, Christ, do these things, or command them to be done, what is left for the devil?”

Robyn Banks

[studyhound]

:popcorn:

[Aseity]

:popcorn:


Me and all me mates will join you:

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Aseity]

No. If you have something to say, say it in this thread.

And stop avoiding my question.

So - to answer my question

- do you agree with Castellio, when he spoke of Calvin killing people who disagreed with his theology?“Do you, Christ, command and approve these things… If you, Christ, do these things, or command them to be done, what is left for the devil?”

Robyn Banks


"Was John Calvin a tyrant? Was he a wicked evil sinner like you and me? Was John Calvin saved by God's wonderful magnificent awesome grace alone, like you and me? Was John Calvin a God fearing man like you and me? Was John Calvin a devil? Was John Calvin a man who loved God deeply and had a passion and compassion for lost souls? Did John Cavin make mistakes? Did he sin like you and me? Was John Calvin "BORN AGAIN?""

Sinshine, you aint answered one of mine yet. Talk about avoiding, you are like a thief looking for a copper!

Read the fist linked article and answer some of the above questions, if you can.

I wouldn't believe a single word that Castrated dude, sorry, Castellio dude had to say even if my very life depended on it. He twists and distorts truth just like you. You are worse.

Now get back and answer some of the points in my first post.

And next time you quote that dude Casterrollo, please leave a link for where you got it or get it. Get it?

Will you end up in the fire?

[Aseity]

Geneva executed Servetus because he denied the fundamental glue that held society together. He denied the fundamental myths that held that culture together.


Servetus denied the fundamental *TRUTHS* that held society together.

I wonder if Servetus is in the Lake of Fire now?

Lost, lost, lost! and lost for nothing!

Spurgeon, "The Soul's Crisis" #906. Luke 18:37.

What is it to be lost?

To be cast away from the presence
of God, to be cast into hell, to have
to suffer, and that forever, all that
the justice of God can demand, all
that the omnipotence of God can inflict.

Why, sirs, if I have but a headache,
or a toothache for one brief hour, my
patience can scarcely endure the torture.

What must it be to suffer such pains for a
century? Man, I cannot guess what it must be!

What must it be to have ten thousand times
worse pains than these for ever and ever?

But all the pangs and pains from which
men suffer here are nothing to be compared
with the woes and mental anguish of the
world to come.

Oh, the agony of a spirit doomed, forlorn,
accursed, upon which God shall put his foot in
awful wrath and lift it up no more for ever!

And there, as you lie, tormented to the quick,
you will have this to be your miserable portion:
I heard the gospel, but I would not heed it;
Christ was put before me, but I would not
acknowledge him; I was entreated to believe
in his name and fly to him for salvation, but
I hesitated, hung in suspense, demurred, and
at length denied him.

And all for what?

For a little drink, a little dance, a little sin
that yielded me but slight pleasure, or for
worldly gain, or for low and groveling vices,
or for sheer carelessness and gaiety!

Lost, lost, lost! and lost for nothing!

A sinner damned! He lost his soul, but
he did not gain the world. He gained
only a little frivolous pleasure, even
that poor pittance he spent in an hour,
and then he was forever cast away!

There is a time, we know not when,
A point we know not where,
That marks the destiny of men,
To glory or despair.

There is a line, by us unseen,
That crosses every path;
The hidden boundary between
God's patience and his wrath.

To pass that limit is to die,
To die, as if by stealth:
It does not quench the beaming eye,
Or pale the glow of health.

The conscience may be still at ease,
The spirits light and gay;
That which is pleasing still may please,
And care be thrust away.

But on that forehead God has set
Indelibly a mark,
Unseen by man; for man as yet
Is blind and in the dark.

And yet the doomed man's path below,
Like Eden, may have bloomed;
He did not, does not, will not know,
Or feel that he is doomed.

He knows, he feels, that all is well,
And every fear is calmed;
He lives, he dies, he wakes in hell,
Not only doomed but damned.

O where is your mysterious line,
By which our path is crossed,
Beyond which God himself has sworn,
That he who goes is lost?

How far may we go on in sin?
How long will God forbear?
Where does hope end? and where begin
The confines of despair?

An answer from the skies is sent-
'You that from God depart,
While it is called today, Repent!
And harden not your heart.'

[rmwilliamsjr]

Servetus denied the fundamental *TRUTHS* that held society together.


What are these *TRUTHS*?
That God is Triune? That the state has the right and responsibility to execute heretics?
denying which one(or both) of these caused his death?
yet only the first is believed true by Calvin's successors in the faith today.
Yet even the secular believe it right executing traitors, those who would deny today's political glue.
The spheres of importance have changed, but the emotionalism, the hype, the enthusiasm has remained the same, only the objects of derision have changed names, from heretic to communist.

[Robyn Banks]

stop avoiding my question.

So - to answer my question

- do you agree with Castellio, when he spoke of Calvin killing people who disagreed with his theology?
“Do you, Christ, command and approve these things… If you, Christ, do these things, or command them to be done, what is left for the devil?”



I wouldn't believe a single word that Castrated dude, sorry, Castellio dude had to say even if my very life depended on it.

So do you consider that Jesus would have acted as Calvin did in Geneva?




next time you quote that dude Casterrollo [sic], please leave a link for where you got it or get it. Get it?

No. I will provide a 'link' only if I consider it is required.




Will you end up in the fire?

Fallacy of Ad Hominem.

Robyn Banks

[Aseity]

So do you consider that Jesus would have acted as Calvin did in Geneva?


What do you think Jesus Christ, very God very man, would have done? Remember, Jesus Christ is LORD of all the universe. He could have just spoken a word and all of Geneva would have been consumed in fire. Would Jesus Christ do such a thing. Would Jesus Christ kill someone? Can He? Could Jesus Christ speak a word from Heaven and consume us all? We all deserve it you realise.

Will you bow your knee and confess with your mouth Jesus Christ is LORD? Will you?

[Robyn Banks]

What do you think Jesus Christ, very God very man, would have done?

I think he would have had the witches over for dinner. Yourself, what do you think Jesus would have done?





Will you bow your knee and confess with your mouth Jesus Christ is LORD? Will you?

Fallacy of non sequitur.

Robyn Banks

[Pilgrim]

I've got to agree with RB on this one. Dinner and conversation.

[Rahab]

What do you think Jesus Christ, very God very man, would have done? Remember, Jesus Christ is LORD of all the universe. He could have just spoken a word and all of Geneva would have been consumed in fire. Would Jesus Christ do such a thing. Would Jesus Christ kill someone? Can He? Could Jesus Christ speak a word from Heaven and consume us all? We all deserve it you realise.

Will you bow your knee and confess with your mouth Jesus Christ is LORD? Will you?
I wonder why Christ allowed the adulteress to live when she had sinned and made no public bowing on her knees and no public confession of her sin and He bestowed on her by His Will the Grace to live and sin no more? No fire for her.....understand it or not only God's Will prevailed..... one expressed by how Christ interacted with sinners.

Seems to me that Christ has less radical methods than yours to rescue folks from sin........I am honestly glad you are NOT God. I have read several of your persistant harangues to non believers in other threads as well as christians who do not join your style of communicating Christ's Character.
Let me make something very clear to you..... you are not representative of how I personaly experience Christ in my life and how I wish for others to know Him.

[rmwilliamsjr]

i'm writing an essay on the topic for my sunday school class.
http://www.dakotacom.net/%7Ermwillia/lesson_plan.html


research notes
collecting data stage now......

several Tweb threads on the topic ought to be referenced below.
looking for help putting the major issues into logical and teaching order for this sunday....TIA



Westminster Confession of Faith 23

WCF 23:I. God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers.
from: http://www.girs.com/library/theology/syllabus/nom5.html
excellent

http://www.pbministries.org/Baptists/J.%20B.%20Jeter/baptist_principles_reset/bpr_p2_08.htm
http://www.covenanter.org/GGillespie/miscellaneousquestions/ggilles13.html

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/calvin.htm

http://www.geocities.com/calvinismheresy/calvinismmain.html
http://www.thirdmill.org/qach_answer_main.asp/section/qa/subnav/ch/file/99812.qna
http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_chap5.htm

THE RIGHT TO HERESY
OR, HOW JOHN CALVIN KILLED A CONSCIENCE
Castellio Against Calvin
by
Stefan Zweig
at: http://www.gospeltruth.net/heresy/heresy_intro.htm

THE
EXECUTION OF SERVETUS
FOR BLASPHEMY, HERESY,
& OBSTINATE ANABAPTISM,
DEFENDED
By John Knox
at: http://www.covenanter.org/Antitoleration/knoxdefended.html

John E. Longhurst
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN
(1517-1546)
at: http://www.ku.edu/carrie/texts/carrie_books/longhurst/index.html

http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?457


from: http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/html/ch/CH.Arnold.RMT.8.HTML

# CALVIN AND THE BURNING OF SERVETUS


1. The one event in Calvin's life that has cast a shadow over his fair name, and which has exposed him to the charge of intolerance and persecution is the burning of the heretic Servetus. Calvin's enemies have played this event to the hilt. Facts have often been withheld or misconstrued so as to put Calvin in a bad light. That the burning of Servetus was a mistake is admitted by all. History knows only one spotless being — Jesus Christ, the savior of sinners. All others have marks of infirmity in their lives.

2. Servetus was a Spaniard who opposed Christianity, both in its Roman Catholic and Protestant forms. He denied the Trinity and was the most audacious and even blasphemous heretic of the sixteenth century. He opposed the teaching of justification by faith and infant baptism. Servetus was a very strange person, and to understand him we have to look into his background. He had a split personality, and perhaps some of this can be traced to the fact he was castrated at the age of five. He was religious and superstitious, but not Christian. He followed astrology like a religion and consulted the stars rather than the Bible for guidance. He was a proud, vain and arrogant man.

3. Servetus had fled to Geneva from Vienna, France. Before he came to Geneva, he corresponded with Calvin, and Calvin did all he could to help this man see the truth of Christianity, but with no success. Servetus regarded Calvin as the pope of orthodox Protestantism whom he was determined to convert or overthrow. When Servetus first came to Geneva, he tried to align himself with the liberal city council that was somewhat opposed to Calvin. Calvin apparently sensed this danger and was in no mood to permit Servetus to propagate his errors in Geneva. Hence he considered it his duty to make so dangerous a man harmless, and determined to bring him either to recantation or to deserved punishment. Servetus actions were in one sense sedition — because in a theocracy there is a mixture of state and church, his attempt to overthrow the church was an attempt to overthrow the government of Geneva. Servetus was promptly arrested and brought to trial.
Calvin and other pastors in Geneva spent days with Servetus, trying to help him to see the error of his way, but Servetus was as hard as stone. He was convinced that the liberal council would throw Calvin out and let him out of jail.

4. The trial of Servetus was left to the civil court, which charged him with fundamental heresy, falsehood and blasphemy. The city council at this point was not favorable to Calvin. The libertines hoped to use the Servetus situation as a means of getting Calvin expelled from Geneva. The court's decision was:

“Inasmuch as you, Michael Servetus of Villanueva in the Spanish kingdom of Aragon, have been accused of terrible blasphemies against the holy Trinity, against the Son of God and other principles of the Christian faith, whereas you have called the Trinity a devil and a monster with three heads, whereas you went about to destroy poor souls by your horrifying mockery of the honor and majesty of God, too wicked to be mentioned, whereas refusing to be taught in any way, you called Christian atheists and magicians, whereas, whereas, whereas . . .

“We, the mayor and judges of this city, having been called to the duty of preserving the church of God from schism and seduction, and to free Christians of such pestilence, decree that you, Michael Servetus, be led to the place of Champel and be bound to a stake and with your book be burned to ashes, a warning to all who blaspheme God.”

The verdict was “guilty,” and the sentence punishment by fire. Calvin, agreeing that Servetus should be put to death, opposed the state’s method of execution and pleaded for the sword to be substituted for the fire. The council refused Calvin's request. The final responsibility for the burning rested with the city council, not Calvin.
Had Servetus been executed in any other way than by fire, his death would have passed almost unnoticed.

5. Calvin considered Servetus the greatest enemy of the Reformation and honestly believed it to be the right and duty of the state to punish those who offended the church. This act was based on the Old Testament principle of death for heretics (Lev. 24:16). Calvin also felt himself providentially called to purify the church of all corruptions, and to his dying day he neither changed his views nor regretted his conduct toward Servetus.

6. We should not be too hard on Calvin in the matter of Servetus, for the spirit of the day among all, except the Anabaptists, whether Catholic or Protestant, was to put heretics to death. The treatment of heretics was an error of the age, and we dare not judge Calvin by our twentieth century standards. We must remember that Servetus was given a fair court trial, which lasted over two months, and that he was sentenced by the full session of the civil council in accordance with the laws which were then recognized throughout Christendom.

It should be noted that only Servetus was put to death in Geneva and no one else. No Catholic or Anabaptist was ever executed in Geneva for the sake of his religious conviction.

7. Calvin's course in regard to Servetus was fully approved by all the leading Re-formers of the time. Melanchthon, Bucer, Bullinger, Farel and Besa all felt that Calvin and Geneva dealt fairly with Servetus. The city council sought the advice of the other cities in Switzerland as to the fate of Servetus and received the following answers:

From Zwingli's city: “No severity is too great to punish such an offense. Our preachers are in total agreement with what Calvin thinks of his doctrine.

From Schaffhausen: “Stop the evil, other-wise his blasphemies, like a crawfish, will eat away the members of Christ!”

From Basel: “Do what lies in your power to convince him of his error. If he persists in his folly, then use the power which is entrusted to you by God to prevent him by force from any further injury to the Church of Christ.”

Even Melanchthon stated to Calvin in a letter, “I have read your book in which you clearly refuted the horrid blasphemies of Servetus . . . To you the Church owes gratitude at the present moment, and will owe it to the latest posterity. I perfectly assent to your opinion. I affirm also that your magistrates did right in punishing, after regular trial, this blasphemous man.”

Public opinion has undergone a great change in regard to this event, and the execution of Servetus which was fully approved by the best men in the sixteenth century is entirely out of harmony with twentieth century ideas.

8. When Servetus was informed of the decision of the council, he was stunned at first, and then began to rant and rave like a mad man. Again, Calvin went to Servetus, hoping to lead him to Christ, and said to him:

“Believe me, never did I have the intention to prosecute you because of some offense against me. Do you remember,” he spoke now with a tender voice and not in a tone of reproach, “how, in danger of death, I wanted to meet you in Paris sixteen years ago in order to win you to our Lord? And afterwards when you were a fugitive was I not concerned to show you the right way in letters until you began to hate me because you were offended by my firmness? But let's not talk about me, nor of the past! Are you thinking of asking forgiveness of the everlasting God whom you have blasphemed on so many occasions? Are you thinking of being reconciled to the Son of God?”

Servetus became quite serious and humble as he faced the certainty of death. He asked Calvin to forgive him, and perhaps he asked Christ for forgiveness also. It is recorded that he spent the last twenty-four hours of his life repeating over and over again, “Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy upon me!”

9. In Geneva at this very hour, on the place where Servetus was burned, is an inscription placed there by later followers of Calvin which says:

“As reverent and grateful
sons of Calvin,
our great Reformer,
repudiating his mistake, which was the mistake
of his age,
and according to the true principles of the
Reformation and the Gospel
holding fast to the freedom of conscience,
we erect
this monument of reconciliation
on XXVII October MCMIII”


<hr>

the lesson will be in 3 pieces:
the first is institutes on church discipline
the second on the history of related ideas--
constantinian synthesis, augustine's 2 swords, use of old testament theocratic metaphors
the third is relationship of state and church

the questions asked are:
was calvin justified in executing servetus for heresy?
should we attempt to enact heresy laws?
what we have learned about the issues historically: is religious tolerance principled or merely pragmatic?

the big point is intend to make is that religious tolerance is allowed now
1-because the basis of society is political and geographic not religious
2-we still execute treason and sedition

but that from the anabaptists we have learned that persuasion is our only tool, that there are ideals worth dying for but not worth killing for. so we deny augustine's 2 swords, the church has only the metaphorical pen

<hr>

<hr>
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28055&highlight=calvin+servetus
http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/pastwords/chl047.shtml
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28054
http://www.whatloveisthis.com/stickelberger.html
http://www.whatloveisthis.com/home.html



Quote:






Good point. Which can nicely segue way us back into the topic at hand. In light of God's grace, the New Testament, the words and teachings of Christ, Christ's fulfillment of the Law etc. how then could Calvin and his fellows at Geneva possibly decide that a theocratic government complete with imprisonment and execution as possible punishments, be according to the teachings of grace and liberty? Shouldn't that lack of proper discernment be taken in to account when regarding his theological disposition as being the faith that embodies 'biblical Christianity?




it's a good question. i don't expect that we will answer it here. but pieces of the answer are straightforward enough to express within TWeb's message posting limits.

1-Calvin is NOT theocratic. Nor was Geneva a theocratic state. Calvin taught an early form of what we now describe as sphere sovereignity. The government of the republic of Geneva and the company of pastor's is best described as Erastian. That is the state operates to command the church. And this is exactly the relationship- the council commanded the company of pastors to admit people that they had excommunicated earlier to the Lord's table. period.

2. the fundamental 'problem' with executing Servetus is that (a) the doctrine of the two swords in Augustine (b)the Constantinian synthesis of Roman state and Christian church that resulted in the confusion of the two, yielding the parish church, the division of the visible church into the Church of Power and the Church of Piety as Stark so well puts it, and the use of the secular sword to kill in cases of heresy.

3. looking at the times through 450 years of subsequent history distorts both what Calvin said and believed and what we as his intellectual and religious heirs have come to see as his errors. The best way of looking at the execution of Servetus is that he was executed for treason. He denied the basic 'glue' that held together society. This is no different than the modern execution of Sacco and Vanzetti or Mrs. Rosenburg. The country saw them as traitors. period.

4.as to the issues of grace and liberty. These are bigger issues. For Calvin as for all covenant theologians there is very little distinction between the Law and Grace, between the covenant of Works and the covenant of Grace. The Law drives men to see their need for redemption, and Grace provides a sacrifice where Jesus completes and actively fulfills the Law in our place. Only the ceremonial portions of Hebraic Law are not applied to Calvin's view of society. The moral Law, both tablets, are still binding on all societies within Calvin's theology. Although Calvin's notions of natural theology are substantially closer to Roman Catholicism than to modern conservative Reformed thinking. He in several places yields to natural fallen man the ability to rightly order society according to 'natural reason' and 'the law as written on the hearts of all men'.

i hope that helps a little. There is supposed to be a statue in Geneva where the intellectual offspring of Calvin apologize to Servetus and his descendents and admit that Calvin was on the wrong side of the issue. Something that took the rise of the American republic and the disestablishment of the churches to teach us. Simply put Calvin was not just a very conservative man but he was in many things a man of his times and therefore prone to the errors of those days. In many ways, i am thinking particularly of Institutes Book I and epistemology Calvin is very much ahead of his time and sounds very modern. In his statecraft he was very conservative and was personally very interested in the issues of stability and lawfulness. One has only to read the extraordinary preface to Institutes, the dedicatory letter to Francis I to prove this point.

-----



Quote:






Those modern executions are very 'secular' in nature, however. The 'glue' that held together society that you speak to would be that present 'Geneva Society'? Servetus was not the only 'result' of Calvin and the councils authority...we have other examples of people imprisoned, flogged etc. at Geneva. Again, is not a Christian to be more than simply a man of his time? Should he or she not transcend the times in which they live? Just as 'the Gospel' does?




Our sanctification is a process in time. It is not expected to be completed this side of heaven (unless you are a Wesleyian perfectionist).
Likewise, analogously, the Church is being perfected in time. Jesus is essentially teaching His bride how to live, and again this is a process in time. Because we are beings in time, in space, finite. There is this slow, and i must confess it appears awkward, unfolding of doctrine, of how to live as children of the King in the world. And this is on top of the social, cultural, historical evolution of the human race itself. The Church seems to straddle the world, partly in the world and thereby contaminated by its inherent evil, and partly in the heavenlys, this great "now but not yet" metaphor. Where the Kingdom is among us, but not yet fully born.

Calvin was a child of his time, and a child of the Church. Just as you and i are. For example, our eccesiology is deeply contaminated by the individualism of our times. We seldom say things like "you can't have God as your Father unless you embrace the Church as your Mother" or "outside of the Church there is no salvation". Part of this individualism finds it's expression in the revulsion most of us feel towards the execution of Servetus, the death due to saying words, to writing books. But another part of this individualism misses the point of Sola Scriptura and moves the spectrum too far from the collective, from the body, from the Church. And this i think is one of the great lessons of the issue. Calvin, as did Luther, and Zwingli and all theologians (except those of the Radical Reformation) until the early 1700's, thought that the body of Christ had to be protected by the secular sword from heresy, lest the thoughts expressed lead any souls to perdition. Perhaps in throwing out the necessity of execution(for heresy) we have inadvertently minimized the damage that heresy is and does. Perhaps we do not take our theology seriously enough.

-----
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27327&highlight=calvin+servetus

from: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=573201&postcount=61

We can judge Calvin as one guilty of complicity in the murder of Servetus. The true church is ever a pillar and support of the truth and, as such, is above moral errors of any age. For example, true Christians did not participate the brutal, family-shattering institution for enslaving members of the black race, a race against which whites had no pecuniary claims as justification for their enslavement of blacks--let alone the matter of shattering black families. Just an error of the age, or another of the moral and spiritual failures in the southern Baptist Church?

(I recall my maternal grandmother, who lived to a very old age, recount on more than one occasion that she had heard more than one Baptist minister, who lived through the Civil War, preach to their congregations that "[blacks] had no soul," meaning that they were not human. She grew into adulthood with that prejudice, and judging by what I remember of her conduct towards blacks, I am fairly certain she never made significant improvement against that error. And yes, my own mother died holding prejudicial views against blacks. I lay some blame for all this at the feet of Presbyterian and Baptist ministers who did not overcome the error of their age.)

True Christians rose above racist error of that age before the Civil War; yes, we can indeed condemn as unchristian and ungodly the enslavement of blacks by those who claimed to own the tenderest affections for Jesus Christ. (God, spare us such "Christians" as those!)

There is no apostolic authority that may be invoked whereby Christians may sit in judgment for purpose of executing those whose beliefs do not agree with true Christianity--just as there is no apostolic authority for the slavery that existed in the USA before the Civil War.

Hos
<hr>

from: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15474&highlight=calvin+servetus
original link: http://www.arminian.net/estep.html
He was no advocate of religious freedom, but an autocrat who often mistook his own will for the will of God.

Calvin never was able to free himself from his Roman Catholic heritage. The tenacity with which he held to infant baptism, a church-state in which a sin against the church became a crime against the state, and the use of the civil government to enforce conformity to the Genevan theocracy reflect his adherence to the Codex Justinian.

His Old Testament hermeneutics and his uncontrollable temper acerbated his intolerance of those who disagreed with him. A case in point was his quarrel with Jerome Bolsec over predestination.

-----
http://www.crisispub.com/evolution_of_calvinism.htm
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10001&page=2&pp=16&highlight=calvin+servetus
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/search.php?searchid=276274
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18618&highlight=servetus+calvin

[Pilgrim]

One thing you might consider for the class (i'm not sure if I mentioned this already) is the contrast between Calvin's reaction to Servetus and his reaction ot Socinus. For some reason Socinus did not engender the same level of condemnation from Calvin as did Servetus. My theory, having read the correspondence between the two, is that Socinus was very flattering of Calvin, going so far as to call him the "greatest divine of our age." I think Calvin was easlily flattered so Socinus couched his criticism of trinitarian thought and his belief in unitarianism in words that would stroke Calvin's ego and make him more open to conversation.

[Pitiricus]

One book you could read to know more about the Calvin-Servetus problem is :"Out of the Flames: The Remarkable Story of a Fearless Scholar, a Fatal Heresy, and One of the Rarest Books in the World" by Lawrence and Nancy Goldstone...

[rmwilliamsjr]

i've read it.
well-written and interesting but the factual basis of it stinks. They are apparently unitarian and allow their viewpoint to over manipulate their data. but you are right, a must read.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So do you agree with Castellio, when he spoke of Calvin killing people who disagreed with his theology?No matter how many times I see remarks like this, I never find them more palatable.

Calvin did not kill anybody. Why in the world to people who are trying to score historical points say this kind of thing? It's almost as though some people have been dupoed into thinking that CALVIN killed Servetus! Has our ignorance really fallen so low?

Glenn

[rmwilliamsjr]

[/url] i finished the first draft, it is at:
[url="http://www.dakotacom.net/%7Ermwillia/lesson15_essay.html"]http://www.dakotacom.net/%7Ermwilli...on15_essay.html (http://www.christianforums.com/images/statusicon/user_online.gif)
it begins---->

Justification:

If you were to analyze the anti-Calvin sites and essays on the net, most of them would make reference to the execution of Michael Servetus and how this event makes Calvin's lifetime work in theology at least suspect, if not totally invalidate. There seem to be two great champions of this viewpoint: secularists who would remake Servetus into a proto-scientist fighting the forces of religion[i] and other darkness and fundamentalist Baptists (see Servetus cover-up comic below) who see their roots in the Anabaptist movement and find in the event a way to cast a cloud over Calvin and thereby dismiss his theology. In both cases, ignorance of the real issues seems to predominate and I hope this lesson will help Reformed Christians understand the fundamental and important issues at stake.
What are the issues?

The first is the necessity of discipline in the church, how it is used and for what purposes.
The second is the relationship of the church to the magistrate.[ii]
This issue has an historical component in the doctrine of the two swords by Augustine and the Constantinian synthesis.
The third is the continuities and discontinuities between the Old and New Testament as interpreted by Calvin and covenant theology and the effects of this exegesis on infant baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
The last I will discuss is the underlying theme of Christendom or Corpus Christianum[iii] and how boundaries are drawn and under what kind of forces these ideas mutate over time. The relationship of Islam to this boundary is of primary importance and is not generally recognized.

[Robyn Banks]

Calvin did not kill anybody. Why in the world to people who are trying to score historical points say this kind of thing? It's almost as though some people have been dupoed into thinking that CALVIN killed Servetus! Has our ignorance really fallen so low?

Oh - what a terrible thing to imagine that Calvin had a significant amount of power and influence in Geneva at that time! Unimaginable!! Unthought of!!! What an idea!

Do you have some hidden agenda, Theonomy? I can't imagine anyone would want to defend Calvin's actions out of honesty.

BTW: Who recognised Servetus and had Servetus arrested after attending whose church service?

Robyn Banks

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Oh - what a terrible thing to imagine that Calvin had a significant amount of power and influence in Geneva at that time! Unimaginable!! Unthought of!!! What an idea!

Do you have some hidden agenda, Theonomy? I can't imagine anyone would want to defend Calvin's actions out of honesty.[/i]My agenda is simple: Truth, and historical honesty (or at least historical education). There are people who talk, either in an attempt to be deceptive, or simply out of ignorance, as thogh John Calvin killed Servetus. You know this is true, and it has been evidenced on this thread. It is hilarious that you want to question my honesty given this fact.

FACT - IRREFUTABLE AND HISTORICALLY ATTESTED, AND AVAILALE TO ALL SINCERE AND HONEST INQUIRERS: John Calvin did not kill Michael Servetus. ADDITIONAL FACT: Servetus was not wanted because of anything that Calvin had said or done. Once a few of these facts star accumlating, the implied or stated accusations of some pepole start looking somewhat dishonest, to put it gently.

By all means, disagree with Calvin if you must. But let's not stoop to telling lies, eithe directly or by implication.
BTW: Who recognised Servetus and had Servetus arrested after attending whose church service?Michael Servetus was arrested by the Council in geneva - a concil which was, at the time, opposed to Calvin. In fact, in response to Servetus' arrest, Calvin requested Leniency for the man. But hey, why spoil a good anti-Calvinist smear campaign with nasty things like honesty and fairness?

Glenn

[seer]

wonder why Christ allowed the adulteress to live when she had sinned and made no public bowing on her knees and no public confession of her sin and He bestowed on her by His Will the Grace to live and sin no more? No fire for her.....understand it or not only God's Will prevailed..... one expressed by how Christ interacted with sinners.

And by doing so Christ undermined the law. Imagine carrying out the death penalty in the OT if the standard was - let him who is without sin cast the first stone. People just do not understand how radical this event was...

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

And by doing so Christ undermined the law. Imagine carrying out the death penalty in the OT if the standard was - let him who is without sin cast the first stone. People just do not understand how radical this event was...My suspicion - and you post confirms this, is that some people just don't understand this event - period.

Glenn

[seer]

My suspicion - and you post confirms this, is that some people just don't understand this event - period.

Glenn


Or they do not want to understand...

[Robyn Banks]

Michael Servetus was arrested by the Council in geneva - a concil which was, at the time, opposed to Calvin. But not opposed on the issue of Servetus' condemnation and death.

I ask again - Servetus was spotted by who in whose church sermon, and who was on good enough terms with the Council to have the Council arrest him?

Although I am sympathetic with your attempt to correct one oversimplification, you have swung the pendulum much too far in favour of the opposite oversimplification. Calvin both initiated and implicitly supported Servetus' death.


Robyn Banks

[dizzle]

Please be aware of the restrictions for this forum area.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

But not opposed on the issue of Servetus' condemnation and death.

I ask again - Servetus was spotted by who in whose church sermon, and who was on good enough terms with the Council to have the Council arrest him?

Although I am sympathetic with your attempt to correct one oversimplification, you have swung the pendulum much too far in favour of the opposite oversimplification. Calvin both initiated and implicitly supported Servetus' death.


Robyn BanksRobyn, I have not stated that Calvin did or did not support Servetus' execution. I am aware that after the fact he sought to justify what had happened.

Calvin did NOT initiate his death. Servetus was a wanted man quite apart from anything to do with Calvin. I gte sick and tired of people suggesting "Calvin did it." You yourself have lent weight to this view in this forum, and now when caught, you're suggesting that I have been historically inaccurate. How outrageous!

Glenn

[dizzle]

Theonomy do you wish this thread to be moved to an area that is not restricted? Robyn should not have posted in this thread.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Or they do not want to understand...Personally, I think it is best not to seek to impute poor motive. But I do mainatin that there is a really woeful misunderstanding by some (admittedly not all, of course) on this text, which is often wielded like a toddler with an uzi!

For your own edification and benefit, seer, I humbly offer the following:

http://theonomy.orcon.net.nz/adulteress.pdf

You'll need the following fonts to see it all correctly:

http://theonomy.orcon.net.nz/greek.ttf

http://theonomy.orcon.net.nz/hebrew.ttf

In His grip, and at your service,

Glenn

[dizzle]

oops tis was an aseity thread, I will move it

[Robyn Banks]

Calvin did NOT initiate his death.

Whose sermon did Servetus go to before his arrest? Who alerted the authorities?


Robyn Banks

[rmwilliamsjr]

Whose sermon did Servetus go to before his arrest? Who alerted the authorities?


Robyn Banks
do you have a primary or reliable source that Calvin recognized him?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Whose sermon did Servetus go to before his arrest? Who alerted the authorities?


Robyn BanksThis is truly precious! Let's review the discourse so far:

Phase 1: Robyn goes with the flow - Calvin killed Servetus. OK Robyn never states it, but clearly condones the opinion.

Phase 2: Glenn rains on this anti-Calvin parade with a shred of historical honesty: Woops, guess what, Calvin didn't do it after all.

Phase 3: Robyn's parade has been rained on, so it's time to shot the messenger. Robyn accuses Glenn of completely swinging the pendulum of inaccuracy in the other direction, as though Calvin never even condoned the execution. Additionally, Robyn asks who recognised Servetus in a church service and alerted the authorities?

Phase 4: Glenn points out that this is a misrepresentation. Glen had never suggested that Calvin did not condone the execution. After the fact Calvin explicitly defended it. It remains true and unrefuted, however, that prior to the execution Calvin did plead for leniency with Servetus.

Phase 5: Robyn's poisition on Calvin is now eleiminated, so a peripheral question is now repeated, in an attempt to divert attention from this fact. Who recognised Servetus in a church service and alerted the authorities?


Well Robyn, all the straw has been blown away, and now we see it - THIS is all you're accusing Calvin of. This means that my corrections have been warranted. Thank you for this vindication. I hope people reading this will be urged to speak up any time someone repeats the drivel that Calvin ran the show, killing people who disagreed with him (as though that's what Servetus was killed for!).

I'll be generous, and I won;t investigate your claim. I'll just give it to you At this stage it doesn't matter. If this is the remnant of your argument, all it means is this: A man who was wanted by the Genevan council came into Calvin's church, and he recognised him as a wanted man. Because of this, he alerted the authorities "The man you are looking for is here, in this church."

And that's it? THAT's why people think Calvin is to blame? I'm glad the weakness of the case is so obvious.


Glenn

[Robyn Banks]

Phase 1: Robyn goes with the flow - Calvin killed Servetus. OK Robyn never states it, but clearly condones the opinion.
Nonsense. This is your Fantasy. Calvin was responsible for the death of Servetus, as were many other people (including some Catholics).

You make the trivial point that Calvin didn't 'kill' Servetus. Well, nobody suggested that he lit the fire, so your point is pathetic.




Robyn accuses Glenn of completely swinging the pendulum of inaccuracy in the other direction, as though Calvin never even condoned the execution. Additionally, Robyn asks who recognised Servetus in a church service and alerted the authorities?
I wonder when you're going to answer this question, or if you're happy continuing to evade it?




Glen had never suggested that Calvin did not condone the execution. After the fact Calvin explicitly defended it.
If you'd dobbed him in, you'd try to defend yourself afterward, too...




It remains true and unrefuted, however, that prior to the execution Calvin did plead for leniency with Servetus.
Really? By pleading for Servetus, do you mean that Calvin requested that Servetus be let off? Or do you mean that Calvin's issue was merely with the means of execution, but that Calvin wanted him executed (before the fact) one way or another?




Robyn's poisition on Calvin is now eleiminated
:lol: :lol: :lol:




Who recognised Servetus in a church service and alerted the authorities?

Well Robyn, all the straw has been blown away, and now we see it - THIS is all you're accusing Calvin of.
Nonsense. Check your facts.
1. Calvin not only had Servetus arrested, but
2. He knew that Servetus would be executed, and
3. He still had major influence over the Council, and
4. He agreed that Servetus should be executed before his execution.

You are completely swinging the pendulum of inaccuracy in the other direction.




I hope people reading this will be urged to speak up any time someone repeats the drivel that Calvin ran the show, killing people who disagreed with him (as though that's what Servetus was killed for!).
Fallacy of Strawman. Servetus died because of Calvin's actions against him.




I'll be generous, and I won;t investigate your claim. I'll just give it to you
I can understand why you're uninterested in facts. Clearly, in your attempt to rebut Catholic polemic, you have reacted with inaccurate and patently false polemic in the opposite direction.

Unfortunately for you, I - ever the voice of moderation - could correct you.




A man who was wanted by the Genevan council came into Calvin's church, and he recognised him as a wanted man. Because of this, he alerted the authorities "The man you are looking for is here, in this church."
Yes - this happened within a church! Think about that.




And that's it?
Certainly not. That was only the first of my four points above. Calvin's responsibility for the death of Servetus goes much further.


Robyn Banks

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

You make the trivial point that Calvin didn't 'kill' Servetus. Well, nobody suggested that he lit the fire, so your point is pathetic.Fallacy of straw man. You think that's all I've said? No, I've pointed out that Servetus was a wnted man, and Servetus was executed, for reasons that had nothing to do with Calvin. That's just brute fact, it's not even any kind of spin. Are you saying the charges against Servetus, and the determined penalty were in some way connected to Calvin? The straw is gone now. Nobody will accept this anymore.
I wonder when you're going to answer this question, or if you're happy continuing to evade it?It is dishonest to make this comment when replying to the same post in which I answered the question, or at least, generously granted to you that this is what happened.
If you'd dobbed him in, you'd try to defend yourself afterward, too...OK at least now there's a shred of honesty peeking through. If Calvin is responsible for anything at all, it is for dobbing in a man who was already wanted, and who would be condemned by others, not Calvin.
Really? By pleading for Servetus, do you mean that Calvin requested that Servetus be let off?Another fallacy of straw man.
You are completely swinging the pendulum of inaccuracy in the other direction.Waa Waa Waa. Your attempt has been exposed already. All that I have said is true. Your towering inferno of a case had now been reduced to a trivial scramble to retain one barely relevant fact, and now you're trying to rebuild a mountain from a grain o sand. Let it go. Truth is much better for you than myth, no matter how important a role that myth might have played for you. While you're at it, have a read of a few balanced sources (as opposed to whetver it is you've been reading). like Alister Mcgrath's A Life of Calvin.

Glenn

Glenn

[brother vinny]

I've pointed out that Servetus was a wnted man, and Servetus was executed, for reasons that had nothing to do with Calvin.

This is true. The reasons for Servetus being wanted, and for him being executed, had nothing to do with Calvin. However, the causes of Servetus's capture and execution had very much to do with Calvin.

[exile]

There's a flight leaving at Gate 21 for the Middle Ages. Calvin and Torquemada are waiting for you, they'll enjoy your company.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

There's a flight leaving at Gate 21 for the Middle Ages. Calvin and Torquemada are waiting for you, they'll enjoy your company.The very fact that you think Calvin lived in the middle ages is evidence enough that it would be a mistake to expect serious discussions about history with you.