Calvin Murder

[redblue22]

What do you think of Calvin turning in a man to be killed because he did not believe in the same version of the trinity?

 

[Abaxvahl]

What do you think of Calvin turning in a man to be killed because he did not believe in the same version of the trinity?

If it is true then he was sinning in this, as Christians do not resist evil by force (Matthew 5:38-39 and related text), how is it possible to use the force (which is you using force by proxy, as with voting and calling the police) of state against someone willingly?

Related is this: "As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and its laws are enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet, we cannot hold any office which imposes upon its incumbent the obligation to do right on pain of imprisonment or death. We therefore voluntarily exclude ourselves from every legislative and judicial body, and repudiate all human politics, worldly honors, and stations of authority. If we cannot occupy a seat in the legislature or on the bench, neither can we elect others to act as our substitutes in any such capacity. It follows that we cannot sue any man at law to compel him by force to restore anything which he may have wrongfully taken from us or others. But, if he has seized our coat, we shall surrender up our cloak rather than subject him to punishment." (Source)

 

[JackRT]

What do you think of Calvin turning in a man to be killed because he did not believe in the same version of the trinity?

Sad. A very deficient understanding of what it means to be Christian.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

What do you think of Calvin turning in a man to be killed because he did not believe in the same version of the trinity?

Calvin and Servetus
by William Wileman

"A calm and impartial view of this sad subject has been reserved for this place, and for a chapter1 of its own. The immense advantage of having been able to consult and to weigh the evidence of the principal writers – certainly not fewer than forty – about the case of Servetus, besides several biographies of the man himself, will greatly aid the writer.

It is very common to hear the remark, ‘What about Servetus?’ or, ‘Who burned Servetus?’ There are three kinds of persons who thus flippantly ask a question of this nature. First, the Roman Catholics, who may judge it to be an unanswerable taunt to a Protestant. Second, those who are not in accord with the great doctrines of grace, as taught by Paul and Calvin, and embraced and loved by thousands still. Then there is a third kind of persons who can only be described as ill-informed. It is always desirable, and often useful, to really know something of what one professes to know.

I shall narrow the inquiry at the outset by saying that all Roman Catholics are ‘out of court.’ They burn heretics on principle, avowedly. This is openly taught by them; it is in the margin of their Bible; and it is even their boast that they do so. And, moreover, they condemned Servetus to be burned.

Those who misunderstand or misrepresent the doctrines of grace call for pity more than blame when they charge the death of Servetus upon those views of divine truth known as Calvinistic. Perhaps a little instruction would be of great value to such. It is very desirable to have clear ideas of what it is we are trying to understand. In most disputes this would make a clear pathway for thought and argument. Most controversies are more about terms than principles.

The third sort of persons are plainly incompetent to take up this case, for the simple reason that they know nothing whatever about it. Pressed for their reasons, they have to confess that they never at any time read a line about the matter.

The duty of the historian is not to plead, but to narrate facts. I shall do this as impartially as possible. One writer need not be imitated (W. H. Drummond, D.D.), who is not ashamed to disfigure his title-page: Life of Michael Servetus, who was entrapped, imprisoned, and burned by John Calvin. Less scurrilous, but equally prejudiced, is Dr. R. Willis. It is a weak case that needs the aid of ink mixed with abusive gall.

The simplest method of arranging my material will be to ask and to answer three questions. First, why was Servetus burned? Second, who burned him? Third, what part in the matter was taken by John Calvin?

Michael Servetus was born at Villanueva, in 1509. After a liberal education, he studied medicine, and anticipated Harvey in the discovery of the circulation of the blood. It appears that he had a lively genius, but was unstable, erratic, and weak. In 1530 he published a book On the Errors of the Trinity. His views need not be given here; one specimen will suffice to give an idea of them. He said that the doctrine of the Trinity was ‘a three-headed Cerberus, a dream of Augustine, and an invention of the devil.’ The book, however, on which his trial was based was his Restitutio Christianismi. Only two copies of this are known to exist, and both are out of England. I have seen a copy of the reprint of 1790. Servetus sent the manuscript of this to Calvin for his perusal, and a lengthy correspondence took place between them, extending from 1546 to 1548. Of this Calvin says: ‘When he was at Lyons he sent me three questions to answer. He thought to entrap me. That my answer did not satisfy him I am not surprised.’ To Servetus himself he wrote: ‘I neither hate you nor despise you; nor do I wish to persecute you; but I would be as hard as iron when I behold you insulting sound doctrine with so great audacity.’

And now occurs what foundation there is on which is built the accusation against Calvin. It occurs in his well-known letter to Farel, dated February 13th, 1546.

Servetus wrote to me a short time ago, and sent a huge volume of his dreamings and pompous triflings with his letter. I was to find among them wonderful things, and such as I had never before seen; and if I wished, he would himself come. But I am by no means inclined to be responsible for him; and if he come, I will never allow him, supposing my influence worth anything, to depart alive.

There lived at Geneva at this time a Frenchman of Lyons named William Trie; and he had a relative at Lyons named Arneys, a Roman Catholic. After the publication of this book by Servetus, Trie wrote to his friend Arneys a letter in which he said that it was base for Protestants to be burned who really believed in Christ while such a man as Servetus should be permitted to live to publish his vile errors. Arneys placed this letter before the Inquisition at Lyons, and Cardinal Tournon arrested Servetus at once. Without giving the mass of details, it will be sufficient to say that Servetus escaped from prison one night by a pretext. His trial, however, proceeded in his absence; and on June 17th, 1552, the sentence of death, namely, ‘to be burned alive, at a slow fire, till his body he reduced to a cinder,’ was passed upon him by the Inquisition. On the same day, his effigy was burned, with five bales of his books.

After wandering for a time, he suddenly turned up in Geneva in July, and was arrested by the Council, which was at this time opposed to Calvin. What Calvin desired from Servetus was his recantation: ‘Would that we could have obtained a retractation from Servetus, as we did from Gentilis’. The thirty-eight articles of accusation were drawn up by Calvin. Two examinations took place. At the second of these, Servetus persisted in one of his errors, namely, that all things, ‘even this footstool,’ are the substance of God. After further examinations, these articles, with the replies of the accused man, were sent to the churches of Zurich, Berne, Basle, and Schaffhausen, with a request for their opinion. Farel’s reply is worthy of record: ‘It will be a wonder if that man, suffering death, should at the time turn to the Lord, dying only one death, whereas he has deserved to die a thousand times.’ In another letter, written from Neuchatel, September 8th, 1553, Farel says: ‘Your desire to mitigate the rigour of punishment is the service of a friend to one who is your mortal enemy. But I beseech you so to act as that no one shall hereafter seek with impunity to publish novel doctrines, and to embroil us all as Servetus has done.’

All these circumstances prove that his trial was lengthy, deliberate, and careful; and quite in harmony with the requirements of the age. All the Reformers who were consulted approved of the sentence that was pronounced. At the last stage of the trial, the discussion lasted for three days. The ‘lesser Council’ were unanimous; and the majority of the Great Council were in favour of capital punishment, and so decided on the last day. Sentence of death by fire was given on October 26th, to be carried into effect on the following day.

And now one man alone stands forth to plead for a mitigation of the sentence, namely, that another form of death be substituted for the stake. That one man was John Calvin. He interceded most earnestly with the judges for this, but in vain. Both Farel, who came to Geneva for the purpose, and Calvin, prayed with the unhappy man, and expressed themselves tenderly towards him. Both of them pleaded with the Council for the substitution of a milder mode of death; but the syndics were inflexible. The historian Paul Henry writes of this matter:

Calvin here appears in his real character; and a nearer consideration of the proceeding, examined from the point of view furnished by the age in which he lived, will completely exonerate him from all blame. His conduct was not determined by personal feeling; it was the consequence of a struggle which this great man had carried on for years against tendencies to a corruption of doctrine which threatened the church with ruin. Every age must be judged according to its prevailing laws; and Calvin cannot be fairly accused of any greater offence than that with which we may be charged for punishing certain crimes with death.

The main facts therefore may now be summarized thus:

1. That Servetus was guilty of blasphemy, of a kind and degree which is still punishable here in England by imprisonment.

2. That his sentence was in accordance with the spirit of the age.

3. That he had been sentenced to the same punishment by the Inquisition at Vienne.

4. That the sentence was pronounced by the Councils of Geneva, Calvin having no power either to condemn or to save him.

5. That Calvin and others visited the unhappy man in his last hours, treated him with much kindness, and did all they could to have the sentence mitigated.

Three hundred and fifty years after the death of Servetus, a ‘monument of expiation’ was erected on the spot where he suffered death at Champel, near Geneva. It bears the date of October 27th, 1903; but the unveiling ceremony was postponed until November 1st. On one side of this monument are recorded the birth and death of Servetus. On the front is this inscription:

Dutiful and grateful followers of Calvin our great Reformer, yet condemning an error which was that of his age, and strongly attached to liberty of conscience, according to the true principles of the Reformation and of the Gospel, we have erected this expiatory monument. October 27th, 1903.

Should the Roman Catholic Church desire to follow this example, and erect ‘monuments of expiation,’ let her first build one in Paris, and unveil it on August 24th (the date of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of the Huguenots – Ed.) And doubtless sites would gladly be given for the same purpose in Oxford, Coventry, Maidstone, Lewes, and other places in England. And should Romanists desire the alteration or abrogation of any oath, instead of tampering with the Coronation Oath of Great Britain, let them first annul the oath taken by every bishop at his consecration that he will pursue heretics to the death. All persecution on account of religion and conscience is a violation of the spirit of the gospel, and repugnant to the principles of true liberty.

Notes

1. This is from Chapter 15 of William Wileman’s (1848-1944) John Calvin: His Life, His Teaching and His Influence (London: Robert Banks & Son, ca. 1909).

Taken from Peace and Truth 2003:3; this was originally posted in Banner ‘Articles’ in October 2003.

www.sgu.org.uk

 

[A_Thinker]

What do you think of Calvin turning in a man to be killed because he did not believe in the same version of the trinity?

A terrible over-reaching of authoriy ...

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

A terrible over-reaching of authoriy...

The sentence was pronounced by the Councils of Geneva, not Calvin. If Calvin had the authority, Servetus would have been beheaded, rather than burned. That in itself shows where Calvin stood with the Councils. It is difficult today to even wrap the mind around what it would have been like to live in Europe during the Reformation times. Blood was shed on every side in the region, consider the Puritan John Foxe and his "Book of Martyrs", with descriptions of executions of Protestants under "bloody" Mary I. Catholics and Protestant persecuted the Anabaptists. It was a dark time in Christian history, let's be careful not to put out the few Protestant lights that burned especially bright in a time of great darkness.

 

[Micah888]

What do you think of Calvin turning in a man to be killed because he did not believe in the same version of the trinity?

The Bible does not authorize Christians to kill other Christians for blasphemy, heresy or apostasy.

So Calvin and the Reformers had absolutely no excuse for killing Servetus for blasphemy, just as the Catholics had not excuse for killing Wycliffe. The Reformers also persecuted and killed Baptists and Anabaptists.

 

[JackRT]

While it is entirely true that Calvin operated within the societal standards of that time and place, it is sad that they were not Christian standards.

 

[Micah888]

While it is entirely true that Calvin operated within the societal standards of that time and place, it is sad that they were not Christian standards.

Again, Calvin was a leading theologian and a pastor. Therefore nothing exonerates him. When Simon the Sorcerer tried to purchase the gift of the Holy Spirit, did Peter order his execution?

 

[JackRT]

Again, Calvin was a leading theologian and a pastor. Therefore nothing exonerates him. When Simon the Sorcerer tried to purchase the gift of the Holy Spirit, did Peter order his execution?

I agree. But Simon was not a sorcerer. He was a magus.

 

[Micah888]

I agree. But Simon was not a sorcerer. He was a magus.

Not sure which Bible you have been reading, but here is the truth about Simon: But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one (Acts 8:9 KJV)

If a man uses sorcery to bewitch people, does that not make him a sorcerer? You might want to get yourself a different Bible. Anyway this is a good example of why Calvin and the Protestants were wrong.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The Bible does not authorize Christians to kill other Christians for blasphemy, heresy or apostasy.

So Calvin and the Reformers had absolutely no excuse for killing Servetus for blasphemy, just as the Catholics had not excuse for killing Wycliffe. The Reformers also persecuted and killed Baptists and Anabaptists.

Correction, Baptists came after the Reformaion, and don't forget that Catholics were in on the Anabaptist persecutions.

Now, actually the Bible has some pretty heavy things to say about false prophecy and false prophets. Ah yes, but our Bible does not include the Old Testament, oh it's just not relevant today...that's the spirit of our age. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible is not composed of Plan A and Plan B, it is one consecutive unfolding of God's glorious plan of Redemption from all eternity. You can be sure that however God feels about this or that sin in the Old Testament, has not changed. Yes the God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever.

"In addition to violating the first two commandments (Ex 20:3-6, Dt 5:7-10), the prohibition against false prophets is clearly set forth in Deuteronomy by Moses to the second generation of Israelites that were rescued from slavery in Egypt and were preparing to enter the Promised Land of Canaan.

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them”, you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion (Heb: sara) against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn (Heb: nadah) you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you (Dt 13:1-5).​

The Hebrew noun for rebellion (sara) is used here to indicate a distinct defection (probably in both a moral and legal sense) and can also be translated as “revolt”, “disobedience” or “apostasy”. The Hebrew verb for turn (nadah) is translated elsewhere as “drive out”, “banish”, “expel”, “go astray” and “cast out”. The verb’s root denotes the forceful action of driving someone or something away, and is also used by Moses to describe cutting down or destroying a tree with an ax (Dt 19:5, 20:19). It was often used of people being driven out of their land, and by Jeremiah to indicate the false shepherds (prophets) that were scattering and driving away the flock (people) from the true Shepherd (Jer 23:2, Ps 80:1). Thus in each case, we see a deliberate and purposeful action by the false prophets in their attempt to lead the people astray from the one true God. This was considered such a serious offense that no attempt was made to bring the agent of Satan to repentance (if even possible). There was no other option than to purge the evil in order to safeguard the purity of God’s people." SOURCE

We are so far from the heart of God as a whole, we trivialize under the banner of tolerance (thinking ourselves righteous in doing so) to the point of mediocrity until we could really care less about the truth if it hurts, because of how little we value truth, as most everything seems to have a price tag attached. The rivers of conviction are all but dried up today....

 

[Freedom~Sprite]

What do you think of Calvin turning in a man to be killed because he did not believe in the same version of the trinity?

Michael Servetus was the name of the man that was burned on the pyre that , at John Calvin's command, remember that Calvin was an attorney before he was a Theologian, was made of dry wood and half of which was made of green wood. Green wood burns slower and the fires last longer for the time it takes for the pile to catch entirely. This would have caused greater suffering unto death by Michael Servetus. And as such a greater example of what befalls those deemed "heretic", as the gathered numbers of people watched Michael slowly die none too quietly.
His last words according to those present, "Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me!"

John Calvin murdered Michael Servetus and he was unrepentant. Calvinism, and John's creation of the TULIP principle, are John's own creation. Though he likely shall in the ever after at the judgment find it regrettable that he chose that route. And killed in order to affirm his , his, doctrine.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Michael Servetus was the name of the man that was burned on the pyre that , at John Calvin's command, remember that Calvin was an attorney before he was a Theologian, was made of dry wood and half of which was made of green wood. Green wood burns slower and the fires last longer for the time it takes for the pile to catch entirely. This would have caused greater suffering unto death by Michael Servetus. And as such a greater example of what befalls those deemed "heretic", as the gathered numbers of people watched Michael slowly die none too quietly.
His last words according to those present, "Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me!"

John Calvin murdered Michael Servetus and he was unrepentant. Calvinism, and John's creation of the TULIP principle, are John's own creation. Though he likely shall in the ever after at the judgment find it regrettable that he chose that route. And killed in order to affirm his , his, doctrine.

Fake News from a Republican, the shame, instead of regurgitating what you've heard or been told by others, go read the real history, you've been sold snake oil friend. I beg of you to do your own investigation, it is worth the time and effort. In my first post in the thread there is an attachment of a public domain work, by Rev. William King Tweedie, a historian with access to the source documents. If you think the mainstream liberal media is biased, you can be sure the same is true of the enemies of Calvin and Calvinism. There is little love for Calvinists, even if the Lord did say to love our enemies, it seems preferable to love those who hate Christianity, as to love those Christians with whom there is disagreement. Sad state of affairs it is.

 

[Freedom~Sprite]

Fake News from a Republican, the shame, instead of regurgitating what you've heard or been told by others, go read the real history, you've been sold snake oil friend. I beg of you to do your own investigation, it is worth the time and effort. In my first post in the thread there is an attachment of a public domain work, by Rev. William King Tweedie, a historian with access to the source documents. If you think the mainstream liberal media is biased, you can be sure the same is true of the enemies of Calvin and Calvinism. There is little love for Calvinists, even if the Lord did say to love our enemies, it seems preferable to love those who hate Christianity, as to love those Christians with whom there is disagreement. Sad state of affairs it is.

WOW! All that and you didn't educate my ignorance? You just made it about me.
Defend what you claim to know. Don't make it personal.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

WOW! All that and you didn't educate my ignorance? You just made it about me. Defend what you claim to know. Don't make it personal.

If you want facts and truth, then please refer to post #4, and also the attachment at the bottom. Post #12 includes part of an article on the punishment for a false prophet you might find interesting. As for me, I will be ignorant until the day I die, but plan on learning, Lord willing until then.

 

[Tayla]

That his sentence was in accordance with the spirit of the age.

Yes, the spirit of the age. Not a very good spirit if you ask me.

 

[Freedom~Sprite]

If you want facts and truth, then please refer to post #4, and also the attachment at the bottom. Post #12 includes part of an article on the punishment for a false prophet you might find interesting. As for me, I will be ignorant until the day I die, but plan on learning, Lord willing until then.

I saw those postings.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Michael Servetus was the name of the man that was burned on the pyre that , at John Calvin's command,

The sentence was pronounced by the Councils of Geneva, not Calvin. John Calvin did not become a citizen in Geneva until some six years later! Further John Calvin warned Servetus not to come to Geneva.

remember that Calvin was an attorney before he was a Theologian,

Not exactly, he studied law, not that he wanted to or enjoyed it, but more out of his father's wishes (his father was a lawyer).

was made of dry wood and half of which was made of green wood. Green wood burns slower and the fires last longer for the time it takes for the pile to catch entirely. This would have caused greater suffering unto death by Michael Servetus.

And here the implication is that at "John Calvin's command" (while not even a citizen), took some twisted delight in the burning of Servetus when that could not be further from the truth, which Tim Challies states truthfully on his blog:

"It should be noted that Calvin was the only person who suggested a lighter sentence, asking the court to allow Servetus to die painlessly by beheading. Calvin prayed with and for Servetus and earlier in his life had sent Servetus a copy of his Institutes. Interestingly, Servetus returned the book with many abusive and insulting comments written in the margins. Despite this offense, Calvin showed clear pastoral concern for this man’s soul." tim challies blog ​

And as such a greater example of what befalls those deemed "heretic", as the gathered numbers of people watched Michael slowly die none too quietly. His last words according to those present, "Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me!"

From the book Calvin and Servetus by Rev Tweedie, one of the charges against Servetus:

"“Item—and contrary to the true foundation of the Christian religion, and detestably blaspheming against the Son of God, he has said that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God from all eternity, but only from his incarnation:"​

John Calvin murdered Michael Servetus and he was unrepentant. Calvinism, and John's creation of the TULIP principle, are John's own creation. Though he likely shall in the ever after at the judgment find it regrettable that he chose that route. And killed in order to affirm his , his, doctrine.

John Calvin only had a part in Servetus' arrest and investigation, as in recommending to Genevian authorities to investigate him. He was sorry that Servetus went against his advice to come to Geneva, and sorry the council did not give him a quicker less painful death. Not only is there no evidence of John Calvin being unrepentant, it is a judgmental attitude considering he:

"preached over two thousand sermons. He preached twice on Sunday and almost every weekday. His sermons lasted more than an hour and he did not use notes." (not to mention tens of thousands of pages of commentary on Scripture, the first Protestant systematic theology, among his many other writings)

"Within Geneva, Calvin's main concern was the creation of a collège, an institute for the education of children. Although the school was a single institution, it was divided into two parts: a grammar school called the collège and an advanced school called the académie. Within five years there were 1,200 students in the grammar school and 300 in the advanced school. The collège eventually became the Collège Calvin, one of the college preparatory schools of Geneva, while the académie became the University of Geneva."

"when he could not walk the couple of hundred yards to church, he was carried in a chair to preach. When the doctor forbade him to go out in the winter air to the lecture room, he crowded the audience into his bedroom and gave lectures there. To those who would urge him to rest, he asked, “What? Would you have the Lord find me idle when he comes?”

None of these historical facts bear the mark of a bitter unrepentant sinner. Finally, John Calvin did not invent the TULIP as you claim, the acronym dates even later than the Canons of the Synod of Dort, which you can thank the Arminian Remonstrance for the Doctrines of Grace, which were a response to the Five Disputations of the Remonstrance.

What you choose to do with the historical facts is up to you, I hope truth is important.

 

[Radagast]

Michael Servetus was the name of the man that was burned on the pyre that , at John Calvin's command

What rubbish! Servetus was condemned by the government of Geneva (preaching against the Trinity was a crime in Geneva, just as it was in Roman Catholic countries, and Servetus had already been condemned to death in France). Calvin did not actually want Servetus burned, but had no influence on the sentence.

That was generous of Calvin; personally I think Servetus got what he deserved.