Calvin Murder

[com7fy8]

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.

I understand that Jesus means for us to not hurt anyone. And "bless those who curse you," He says in Matthew 5:44. So, in case anyone somehow curses us and our doctrine, not only does Jesus want us to not hurt our enemies, but also that we seek God's blessing for them.

And with this we have what our Apostle Paul says to do, "first of all" > 1 Timothy 2:1-4.

So, if people were to burn to death someone who is speaking against God's word, it is clear to me that those people are not obeying Jesus and His approved church leadership.

But even if certain Catholic leaders and John Calvin and other Reformers have promoted what is wrong, this does not automatically mean that any and all of their teachings must be wrong. There are people who can believe correct things, and yet those people are not to be trusted. Ones can use what is good and popular, in order to get credibility for themselves; yet, they can be tyrants and not God's qualified leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-10, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Peter 5:3).

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.

If this is true, I see at least two possibilities for how to understand this.

One is I could say he was wrong to accept and seek any form of death penalty.

Two is, for all I know, he felt he was being practical, knowing any death method would be anti-Christ, but that it was not reasonable to expect anti-love people to release Servetus from any form of death penalty.

if he come, I will never allow him, supposing my influence worth anything, to depart alive.

So, this to me this seems to mean that John Calvin did favor the death penalty.

Oh yes . . . of course . . . even if who-knows-who was wrong to kill Servetus or to seek a compromise form of death for him, still it was the fault of Servetus to put himself in that situation. If he was so stubbornly anti-Jesus in his ways, he was already dead . . . love-dead. And I find it interesting how such a wrong man could be so intent on holding to his foolish stuff.

What Calvin desired from Servetus was his recantation: ‘Would that we could have obtained a retractation from Servetus, as we did from Gentilis’.

All the Reformers who were consulted approved of the sentence that was pronounced.

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.

I personally understand that killing people is not what protects the real church "from ruin". Jesus guarantees how Satan's kingdom can not prevail against the real church.

I suspect that a number of the Reformers were Catholic wannabes. They just did not want the Pope controlling them. So, they could continue a number of wrong things which had been started by tyrants calling themselves Catholic. For example, if the above quote is correct, "All the Reformers who were consulted" were fine with killing people who did not agree with them!! So, this could mean they changed from certain things considered to be Catholic, but they did not change to love.

Nowadays, we see how in certain groups a number of very wrong people have politically managed to get into higher positions of leadership. But the Jesus people do not go along with that. Jesus' sheep can tell the difference > John 10:1-30. Ones of us might stay under the wrong leaders, but we do what God has us doing. In wrong situations there can be saved pastors and others. Also, we can simply set up worship elsewhere and in our homes.

To me, Galatians 2:11-13 means that we never are excused to go along with how a leader is wrong.

And we are wise not to make a major project of giving attention to the wrong people; because if our example is right in the sight of God, God will use our example to communicate better than any amount of scholarship and arguing and politics can.

And Isaiah 55:11 to me proves how God's word will do all He Himself means by His word, and no amount of screwball stuff can keep this from happening. God will do better in us, than what wrong people are opposing and are claiming His word to mean ! ! !

 

[JoeP222w]

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?

Need more info than that. If you are referring to Michael Servetus, you believing in revisionist history.

 

[Mountainmike]

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 sign of the times.

He was not alone - Henry 8 , ensured tyndale was killed for writing nasty things about him in a book
How did tyndale expect it to end differently? Even Jesus did not openly criticise the Roman emperor despite having plenty of cause. Sure catholicism excommunicated Tyndale for verifiable heresy in translations. But that wasnt how he got himself killed. Making an enemy of one of the most powerful rulers in europe who routinely hung draw and quartered dissenters, was never going to end well, even if Henrys men had to search europe for him.


It is also proof of the problem that reformers have -
which is the inevitable result of sola scriptura - all claim their own interpreation. . They did not agree with each other , let alone catholicism. Luther toned it down in saying he would have nothing to do "with that heresy" speaking of Henry 8 church but he did not dare criticise Henrys morality. Which proves that despite the attempt to claim a basic unity now in protestantism, the reformers certainly did not share it then. "As many doctrines as heads" moaned Luther.

 

[Alpha.Omega]

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.

"If Calvin had the authority, Servetus would have been beheaded, rather than burned"

It is time that the Calvinists stopped making excuses for this despicable act of John Calvin, and admit that his judgement and heart in this matter is NOT Christ-like in any way, and distance themselves from this event. So, you suppose MURDER by beheading is acceptable to the Lord, but by burning is not? "Thou sall NOT MURDER" is a Command for ANY form of this high crime. Also, stop trying to justify this by Calvin by using other examples from history. It does NOT work with the Lord.

 

[Athanasius377]

I think it is a mistake to judge persons in history according to our standards. Let me be clear, I do not approve of the state prosecuting anyone for heresy. However, capital punishment for heresy was the norm in this time period in both protestant and catholic lands. The idea there would be the sort of religious liberty or freedom of belief is a long way off and really doesn't start to take hold until after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War. Servetus was also an obnoxious boar of a man who didn't help his case by showing up not only in Geneva but attended a sermon given by Calvin himself.

 

[Vicomte13]

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?

Christians have never had the right to kill anybody, other than as punishment for murder, or in self-defense. Neither does any other man on earth.

Those who do, are all murderers, have committed a sin that, according to Jesus, twice on the last two pages of the Bible, earns the lake of fire after final judgment, unless repented.

The Christians of the past who committed these murders, whatever their reasons and whatever their denominations, either were forgiven by God for having done it or they weren't. Nothing that we say or do can change their fate, unless prayers for the dead are efficacious.

The crucial thing for us to learn from the history is not the state of Calvin's soul, or Servetus', or Pope Leo's for that matter. They are dead and gone. What matters is what we learned from it.

Something all Christians should realize is that one of the primary REASONS for the rise of the strong secular state which has stripped religious organizations of the power, authority and independence they once had is BECAUSE societies remember their history, and remember what happened when religion ruled the roost. It was bad, and so people used their states to rip the fangs out of religion. In most parts of the world. If one wishes to feel what it felt like to live in Calvin's Geneva, or Luther's Germany, or Leo's Catholic Christendom, one need only fly to Saudi Arabia and settle there, subject to religious oversight by people with whom one does not agree.

One of the reasons that the arguments made by the Catholic Church in the Reformation period, and by Luther, and by Calvin, are all so weak when challenged by modern theologians is that those men had recourse to violence to silence their opposition, and used it liberally. As a result, they did not have to live right alongside people who ridiculed them for their logical inconsistencies: they murdered them and thereby silenced the criticism.

By doing so they did NOT dispel the logical problems with their theologies, they merely did as the Communists did and the Muslims do: silenced the critique. That causes the errors and foolishness of the arguments to stand out all the more, but nobody dares raise a voice because of the fear of death. So the whole system rots from the head, thanks to bad and uncorrectable ideas, and in the end it collapses and is pushed over. That's what happened to the Soviet Union. It's what happened to the medieval Catholic Church, and it's what happened more generally to the various national Christianities of Europe. They managed to carve out territorial fiefs for their weak ideas through the liberal application of violence. But the unreconciled societies they momentarily conquered remembered the violence and held that against whatever their arguments and theology were, and rejected the rule of the church in favor of their kings, who were more reasonable than their priests.

Europe was a bunch of theocracies in the 1500s and into the 1600s. And the result was so dark and evil that, across the board, Europeans rejected religion in favor of reason, theocracy in favor of monarchy, then representative monarchy.

Today, we still have the religions, but they no longer have fangs. (And when they start to sprout them, in cults, we shut them down with government power. Nope. Been there, done that, smelled the burnt flesh, not going back.) Religion is simply not IMPORTANT enough to be allowed to wield that sort of power over men.

That's the bottom line. Calvin's prosecution of Servetus was part and parcel of an era when Christianity was the dominant legal, social, political and judicial force in Europe. Christianity behaved so murderously in that role that the people demoted it and tore its fangs out. Now it influences individual consciences, but no longer wields real power. That is the consequence of what Calvin did to Servetus, what Luther did to the witches, and what the Catholics did to heretics. They all resorted to murder, and as a result, the Church Rampant had to be torn down and reduced to a meeting hall, subject to government regulation.

When foolish Christians actually DEFEND the murders carried out by their churches and their fanatical, and evil, leaders of the past, they merely confirm in the rest of us the reason WHY the church must always be subordinated to the state. When it wasn't, Europe, and Puritan Massachusetts, were like Saudi Arabia.

If the choice is between secularism and Taliban rule, it's a no brainer: secularism. Such is the consensus of every human being who isn't hellbent. The ones who are will always defend the use of violence to enforce their ideas - which is precisely why the Church cannot be allowed to rule anything. Fanatics kill people and then go to hell. And if they rule, they put everybody else through hell while they are on their way.

 

[A_Thinker]

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

For what crime was he burned ?

 

[Radagast]

Let me be clear, I do not approve of the state prosecuting anyone for heresy.

Neither do I actually.

But I do believe in following in the footsteps of St Nicholas, and punching people like Arius and Servetus in the face.

 

[Radagast]

For what crime was he burned ?

He was preaching against the Trinity. That was a crime for which he had already been condemned to death in France.

 

[Radagast]

It is time that the Calvinists stopped making excuses for this despicable act of John Calvin

I can see that you really, really hate Calvinists, but how is this Calvin's fault? It was the government of Geneva that executed Servetus, not Calvin. Calvin was not part of the government of Geneva. Calvin actually tried to get them not to burn Servetus, and failed.

It wasn't a "murder," it was a legitimate, democratic government enforcing its laws.

 

[dqhall]

A sign of the times.

He was not alone - Henry 8 , ensured tyndale was killed for writing nasty things about him in a book
How did tyndale expect it to end differently? Even Jesus did not openly criticise the Roman emperor despite having plenty of cause. Sure catholicism excommunicated Tyndale for verifiable heresy in translations. But that wasnt how he got himself killed. Making an enemy of one of the most powerful rulers in europe who routinely hung draw and quartered dissenters, was never going to end well, even if Henrys men had to search europe for him.


It is also proof of the problem that reformers have -
which is the inevitable result of sola scriptura - all claim their own interpreation. . They did not agree with each other , let alone catholicism. Luther toned it down in saying he would have nothing to do "with that heresy" speaking of Henry 8 church but he did not dare criticise Henrys morality. Which proves that despite the attempt to claim a basic unity now in protestantism, the reformers certainly did not share it then. "As many doctrines as heads" moaned Luther.

John Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. The Pope opposed him and him arrested. The Roman Catholics used a Latin Bible and were opposed to common people being able to read the scriptures for fear they might misinterpret them. There was nothing to stop the Roman Catholics from misinterpreting scripture as they killed thousands of people who objected to their claim to be the only acceptable authority on the scriptures.

 

[A_Thinker]

I can see that you really, really hate Calvinists, but how is this Calvin's fault? It was the government of Geneva that executed Servetus, not Calvin. Calvin was not part of the government of Geneva.

It wasn't a "murder," it was a legitimate government enforcing its laws.

Did Calvin do anything which placed Servetus along this path ?

 

[Radagast]

Did Calvin do anything which placed Servetus along this path ?

What path? Calvin discouraged Servetus from coming to Geneva, if that's what you mean.

 

[Petros2015]

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.

lol

 

[Alpha.Omega]

I can see that you really, really hate Calvinists, but how is this Calvin's fault? It was the government of Geneva that executed Servetus, not Calvin. Calvin was not part of the government of Geneva.

It wasn't a "murder," it was a legitimate, democratic government enforcing its laws.

hate Calvinists? shows how much you really know about a person! Quit pre-judging people and stick to facts! How is it Calvin's fault? The fact is that he was not forced to vote for this murder, no one held a gun to his head and said that if you don't consent, you will be jailed. STOP excusing this unlawful murder.

 

[Alpha.Omega]

What path? Calvin discouraged Servetus from coming to Geneva, if that's what you mean.

BUT, Calvin still voted for his murder. Yes or no?

 

[A_Thinker]

What path? Calvin discouraged Servetus from coming to Geneva, if that's what you mean.

Does Calvin bear any responsibility for Servetus' fate ?

Did he do anything, other than warn him not to come to Geneva ?

 

[mdamon0501]

Christians have never had the right to kill anybody, other than as punishment for murder, or in self-defense. Neither does any other man on earth.

Those who do, are all murderers, have committed a sin that, according to Jesus, twice on the last two pages of the Bible, earns the lake of fire after final judgment, unless repented.

The Christians of the past who committed these murders, whatever their reasons and whatever their denominations, either were forgiven by God for having done it or they weren't. Nothing that we say or do can change their fate, unless prayers for the dead are efficacious.

The crucial thing for us to learn from the history is not the state of Calvin's soul, or Servetus', or Pope Leo's for that matter. They are dead and gone. What matters is what we learned from it.

Something all Christians should realize is that one of the primary REASONS for the rise of the strong secular state which has stripped religious organizations of the power, authority and independence they once had is BECAUSE societies remember their history, and remember what happened when religion ruled the roost. It was bad, and so people used their states to rip the fangs out of religion. In most parts of the world. If one wishes to feel what it felt like to live in Calvin's Geneva, or Luther's Germany, or Leo's Catholic Christendom, one need only fly to Saudi Arabia and settle there, subject to religious oversight by people with whom one does not agree.

One of the reasons that the arguments made by the Catholic Church in the Reformation period, and by Luther, and by Calvin, are all so weak when challenged by modern theologians is that those men had recourse to violence to silence their opposition, and used it liberally. As a result, they did not have to live right alongside people who ridiculed them for their logical inconsistencies: they murdered them and thereby silenced the criticism.

By doing so they did NOT dispel the logical problems with their theologies, they merely did as the Communists did and the Muslims do: silenced the critique. That causes the errors and foolishness of the arguments to stand out all the more, but nobody dares raise a voice because of the fear of death. So the whole system rots from the head, thanks to bad and uncorrectable ideas, and in the end it collapses and is pushed over. That's what happened to the Soviet Union. It's what happened to the medieval Catholic Church, and it's what happened more generally to the various national Christianities of Europe. They managed to carve out territorial fiefs for their weak ideas through the liberal application of violence. But the unreconciled societies they momentarily conquered remembered the violence and held that against whatever their arguments and theology were, and rejected the rule of the church in favor of their kings, who were more reasonable than their priests.

Europe was a bunch of theocracies in the 1500s and into the 1600s. And the result was so dark and evil that, across the board, Europeans rejected religion in favor of reason, theocracy in favor of monarchy, then representative monarchy.

Today, we still have the religions, but they no longer have fangs. (And when they start to sprout them, in cults, we shut them down with government power. Nope. Been there, done that, smelled the burnt flesh, not going back.) Religion is simply not IMPORTANT enough to be allowed to wield that sort of power over men.

That's the bottom line. Calvin's prosecution of Servetus was part and parcel of an era when Christianity was the dominant legal, social, political and judicial force in Europe. Christianity behaved so murderously in that role that the people demoted it and tore its fangs out. Now it influences individual consciences, but no longer wields real power. That is the consequence of what Calvin did to Servetus, what Luther did to the witches, and what the Catholics did to heretics. They all resorted to murder, and as a result, the Church Rampant had to be torn down and reduced to a meeting hall, subject to government regulation.

When foolish Christians actually DEFEND the murders carried out by their churches and their fanatical, and evil, leaders of the past, they merely confirm in the rest of us the reason WHY the church must always be subordinated to the state. When it wasn't, Europe, and Puritan Massachusetts, were like Saudi Arabia.

If the choice is between secularism and Taliban rule, it's a no brainer: secularism. Such is the consensus of every human being who isn't hellbent. The ones who are will always defend the use of violence to enforce their ideas - which is precisely why the Church cannot be allowed to rule anything. Fanatics kill people and then go to hell. And if they rule, they put everybody else through hell while they are on their way.

I believe your summary assumes too heavily that theology does not have any control, especially in modern republic and democratic governmental systems where voting is the norm. All Law big and small relies upon the good conscience of an individual to follow it. The American founding fathers understood this idea deeply, insisting that no matter how secure a secular government felt, ultimately it was being allowed to rule by the consent of the governed. Research into Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union will yield similar conclusions. These murderous states did not exist without a large amount of public support, in-fact, in the Soviet Union, 1 in 3 people would at one time or another report their friends and family to the communist authorities. Similarly too, there were plenty of instances of people willingly suffering in Gulags and dying in Concentration Camps due to the fervor of their zealot like support for these regimes.

Religion in its many myriad of forms and doctrines sits at one of the deepest foundational levels of human society. Acting as a belief system through which people interpret the world around them. No man secular or otherwise could have any freewill if he/she did not also have a belief system through which to filter stimulus and information. Foundational Belief is fundamental to decision making, and therefore, ruling over countries or not, Religion sits right at the beating heart of a government: it's people.

 

[Vicomte13]

hate Calvinists? shows how much you really know about a person! Quit pre-judging people and stick to facts! How is it Calvin's fault? The fact is that he was not forced to vote for this murder, no one held a gun to his head and said that if you don't consent, you will be jailed. STOP excusing this unlawful murder.

Calvin prosecuted the case. He made the arguments to the court that resulted in Servetus' conviction.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

Quite so. Calvin was a man of his time, and while he certainly seems to have acted as he supposed God wanted him to do, at that point he was serving another master. But as you say, pretty much any religious leader who had political power was doing the same thing, including Catholics and other Protestants.

The answer is that any use of political power to advance faith is an affront to God, Who neither needs nor wants what is Caesar's. And it is almost certain to corrupt His people who are given the power.