From a Calvinist to Calvinists -- Servetus

[cdevidal]

Please, non-Calvinists, do not respond. I know what your opinion is on this subject. You have other platforms to express your thoughts on this.

Just trying to test the spirits... what about Calvin and Servetus? The common reaction is "The actions of a sinful man do not refute sound doctrine." I know, because I once said it

Let me remind you of Jesus' words:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-20 ESV)

Did he really recommend Servetus be killed? If so, what are we to do with his teachings?

Again non-Calvinists, please do not respond. Bring this up somewhere else; the title of this forum is "Ask a Calvinist."

I appreciate your understanding.

 

[UMP]

Please, non-Calvinists, do not respond. I know what your opinion is on this subject. You have other platforms to express your thoughts on this.

Just trying to test the spirits... what about Calvin and Servetus? The common reaction is "The actions of a sinful man do not refute sound doctrine." I know, because I once said it

Let me remind you of Jesus' words:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-20 ESV)

Did he really recommend Servetus be killed? If so, what are we to do with his teachings?

Again non-Calvinists, please do not respond. Bring this up somewhere else; the title of this forum is "Ask a Calvinist."

I appreciate your understanding.

Calvin was just a man. Just because man refers to and sometimes lables bible truth with the term "Calvinism" is meaningless in and of itself, for the truth is Bible truth not truth from "Calvin". You could call it "shop sticks" if you want to.
I call it the "truth" from the Word of God, the "Old School Baptists" call it "The Doctrines of Grace", etc. etc.

Please allow this very loose analogy:
If Adolph Hitler proclaims Arian superiority in engineering, you don't discount the fact that Germans are superior engineers just because Hilter was a wacko.

In other words, The truth is the truth, no matter how you slice it, or what name you call it by.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Did he really recommend Servetus be killed? If so, what are we to do with his teachings?

What do we do with his teachings? Well, I suppose we ought to compare them with Scripture. If they accurately represent what Scripture says, what do you think we should do with them?

 

[mlqurgw]

Please, non-Calvinists, do not respond. I know what your opinion is on this subject. You have other platforms to express your thoughts on this.

Just trying to test the spirits... what about Calvin and Servetus? The common reaction is "The actions of a sinful man do not refute sound doctrine." I know, because I once said it

Let me remind you of Jesus' words:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-20 ESV)

Did he really recommend Servetus be killed? If so, what are we to do with his teachings?

Again non-Calvinists, please do not respond. Bring this up somewhere else; the title of this forum is "Ask a Calvinist."

I appreciate your understanding.

I am no great fan of Calvin because I do believe some of what he taught was wrong which need not be expounded upon. Still, we must seek to understand the culture and influences of the time before we put a blanket of condemnation on him. The world of the time was much more outwardly religious and the powers of civil rule used it as a sword. The thinking of the day, which I believe Calvin taught, was that the gov't was a tool of God and heretics were put to death commonly in those days. It wasn't something unusual. I believe Calivin actually sought mercy for Servetus and tried to get him to recant his heresy several times. Calvin was a man as much influenced by the time he lived in as we are. We do not say that Peadobaptists are devils because they put many Baptists to death because it was a product of the time and culture. It doesn't excuse the act but it must be viewd in context of cultural influences. They acted according to their conscience and the light given them at the time.

So what we do with Calvin's teachings is where they are right we agree and where they are wrong we disagree and make no judgements on the man. The same as we do with any other preacher.

 

[BBAS 64]

Please, non-Calvinists, do not respond. I know what your opinion is on this subject. You have other platforms to express your thoughts on this.

Just trying to test the spirits... what about Calvin and Servetus? The common reaction is "The actions of a sinful man do not refute sound doctrine." I know, because I once said it

Let me remind you of Jesus' words:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-20 ESV)

Did he really recommend Servetus be killed? If so, what are we to do with his teachings?

Again non-Calvinists, please do not respond. Bring this up somewhere else; the title of this forum is "Ask a Calvinist."

I appreciate your understanding.

Good Day, cdevidal

Did he recommend him to be killed, NO. I think one must remember that Calvin at the time of "the killing" was not even a citizen of Geneva.

Calvin warned him to stay away from Geneva, knowing he would be killed.

We are talking about some very different times, and circumstances here. Others were killed in Geneva as heretics besides just Servetus.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[cdevidal]

The truth is the truth, no matter how you slice it, or what name you call it by.

Well I know what you mean, which is why I typically respond, "The actions of a sinful man do not refute sound doctrine."

The problem I have is with Matthew 7! John Calvin didn't give birth to these concepts but he highly refined them. Should we now throw out his refinements or at least look with suspicion?

And if we don't, on what basis do we judge false prophets based upon Matthew 7?

Just trying to play the "devil's advocate."

 

[cdevidal]

What do we do with his teachings? Well, I suppose we ought to compare them with Scripture. If they accurately represent what Scripture says, what do you think we should do with them?

Obey them, of course. But why is Matthew 7 there if we are not to compare Johnny to it?

 

[cdevidal]

I am no great fan of Calvin because I do believe some of what he taught was wrong which need not be expounded upon.

I don't know what else Calvin taught. I'm thinking in particular the doctrines we now summarize as TULIP.

Still, we must seek to understand the culture and influences of the time before we put a blanket of condemnation on him. The world of the time was much more outwardly religious and the powers of civil rule used it as a sword. The thinking of the day, which I believe Calvin taught, was that the gov't was a tool of God and heretics were put to death commonly in those days. It wasn't something unusual.

So if I understand you, you believe that Calvin believed that what he was doing was good in the eyes of God. Hence he never repented of it. Correct?

I believe Calivin actually sought mercy for Servetus and tried to get him to recant his heresy several times.

Where did you see that? I want to see it myself.

Calvin was a man as much influenced by the time he lived in as we are. We do not say that Peadobaptists are devils because they put many Baptists to death because it was a product of the time and culture. It doesn't excuse the act but it must be viewd in context of cultural influences. They acted according to their conscience and the light given them at the time.

Perhaps that's the same as slavery. Here in the 21st century, slavery is a gross sin. But apparently it matters little to God, for He even gave direction how to care for slaves!

By the way, I don't want to go down that rabbit trail; if you feel compelled to talk about slavery, please start a new topic. I just was trying to think of another example.

So what we do with Calvin's teachings is where they are right we agree and where they are wrong we disagree and make no judgements on the man. The same as we do with any other preacher.

Well, I still have the Matthew 7 problem. Some false prophets surely do say some truthful things. I think the warning Jesus was giving was to look out for twisting the truth, giving it an interpretation that was not from God. And the way you can tell that someone will do that is they bear bad fruit.

So I still have a Matthew 7 stumbling block. We must NOT be pragmatists and say, "well if it works it's good."


Good information, by the way. Good way of looking at it. You've been alot of help.


Could you show me where Calvin pleaded for mercy for Servetus?

 

[cdevidal]

Did he recommend him to be killed, NO.

Where did you see that?

I think one must remember that Calvin at the time of "the killing" was not even a citizen of Geneva.

Good to know, but I don't see how that's relevant.

Calvin warned him to stay away from Geneva, knowing he would be killed.

Where did you see that?

We are talking about some very different times, and circumstances here. Others were killed in Geneva as heretics besides just Servetus.

Thanks for the info, but I still have a Matthew 7 stumbling block.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Please, non-Calvinists, do not respond. I know what your opinion is on this subject. You have other platforms to express your thoughts on this.

Just trying to test the spirits... what about Calvin and Servetus? The common reaction is "The actions of a sinful man do not refute sound doctrine." I know, because I once said it

Let me remind you of Jesus' words:
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-20 ESV)

Did he really recommend Servetus be killed? If so, what are we to do with his teachings?

Again non-Calvinists, please do not respond. Bring this up somewhere else; the title of this forum is "Ask a Calvinist."

I appreciate your understanding.

Yes, Calvin did believe that Servetus was a man guilty of crimes that were worthy of death. The Catholics, Lutherans and other Reformed Churches all believed the same think on this point. It fit in with the 16th century cultural milieu.

Today you would be hard pressed to find any Christians who would see it that way, and it seems to be so obvious that it is heard for us to imagine how anyone could miss it.

I read a lot of history and a lot of the writtings of Christian thinkers from the past. As you read ancient Christians you find that they all have beliefs that are hard to imagine and seem so obviously wrong. They missed these clear errors, because of their own cultural blind spots. We today have the same blind spots and future generations will look back on our times and wonder "How could a Christian believe that?"

I have read a good deal of Calvin, Luther, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, Thomas a-Kempis, Anselm, St. Jerome etc... I think these Christians all have good and bad points. They have biblical and Godly insight and they miss the ball dramatiaclly (as I am sure I do and you do as well).

Calvin has plenty of warts, as does every man of clay, save Jesus Christ. Servetus was one man at a time when people an all sides were being slaughtered for their "thought" crimes. The followers fo Calvin in France (the Huguenots) had over 30,000 of their number slaughtered in one day.

Calvin's part in the death of Servetus (which are often exaggerated by Calvin's enemies, and also played down by his friends) are rightly open to condemnation, but they must be seen in context.

BTW: Calvin's enemies controlled Geneva, and they are the ones who condemned Servetus and had him burned at the stake. Calvin agreed with the dicision to execute Servetus, but his plea for mercy and request for a more humane execution were ignored and he was criticised by other Christian leaders for wanting to go lightly on Servetus Contex.

On more point I am not a "Calvinist" because of Calvinist because I believe the teachings that have been tageed with that name are biblical.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[cdevidal]

"I am not afraid to submit my Calvinism (...) to the searching of the Bible." -- C.H. Spurgeon

"Now [the Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." (Acts 17:11 ESV)

 

[UMP]

Well I know what you mean, which is why I typically respond, "The actions of a sinful man do not refute sound doctrine."

The problem I have is with Matthew 7! John Calvin didn't give birth to these concepts but he highly refined them. Should we now throw out his refinements or at least look with suspicion?

And if we don't, on what basis do we judge false prophets based upon Matthew 7?

Just trying to play the "devil's advocate."

Well,
Let's test these "refinements" by the word of God.
Go ahead with "refinement" # 1.....

 

[cdevidal]

"On more point I am not a 'Calvinist' because of Calvinist because I believe the teachings that have been tageed with that name are biblical." -- Cajun


Amen. I hesitate to even call myself a Calvinist. I'll have to look at the rest of your reply later because I'm out of time for now.

 

[cdevidal]

"Let's test these 'refinements' by the word of God. Go ahead with 'refinement' # 1....." -- UMP

Not sure I understand what you're asking me to do, but what I had in mind is Calvin expounded the understandings of those who came before him such as Augustine and Luther. He didn't give birth to TULIP (nor was it even summarized as such until after his death).


Update: Furthermore, those 'refinements' are not the subject here, Calvin is.

 

[UMP]

"Update: Furthermore, those 'refinements' are not the subject here, Calvin is.

Therefore I refer to my first post:
....."Calvinism" is meaningless in and of itself, for the truth is Bible truth not truth from "Calvin". You could call it "shop sticks" if you want to.......

 

[mlqurgw]

I am going to refer you to a man much more gifted than I in the things of God. Here is a message on Mat. 7 that I think you will find interesting.
http://www.donfortner.com/sermon_notes/40_matthew/mat%2007v15%20Nine%20Marks%20Of%20A%20False%20Prophet%201288.htm

 

[Ryft]

I suppose my beliefs could be described as "Calvinist" in a loose sense, for I believe a lot of things that Calvin himself apparently believed and taught. And people are certainly quick to label me as one. Yet, interestingly, I have never read anything that John Calvin wrote (except wherever he is quoted by other authors). It would probably be more fitting to call me a Spurgeonite or a M'Cheynean, for I have at least read their writings.

I think the distinction is this: I am not a "Calvinist" because of what Calvin believed and taught, I'm a Calvinist because of what the Scriptures teach. I was introduced to the doctrines of grace by a close personal friend, and more in-depth later through the writings of John Piper, Robert M'Cheyne, Brian Schwertley, Charles Spurgeon, Robert Sproul, and Benjamin Warfield, and became a firm believer in the doctrines of grace through an intense study of Scriptures—to see if what these men said was true. I found my Arminian beliefs falling apart at every side as a result of this intense Scriptural study, and my "Calvinist" beliefs were solidified.

Even if it could be argued that Calvin was a "false prophet" (although I sincerely doubt such an argument could work) and his writings had to be tossed out, my beliefs would nevertheless remain as they are because they were not derived from Calvin and his writings in the first place. I was already a Calvinist by the time I heard about The Institutes.

I am not a Calvinist because of Calvin—or his character, beliefs, or teachings. I'm not even sure I should be called a Calvinist, since these beliefs are derived from Scriptures, which predated Calvin by several centuries. In fact, this whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had once with a certain young man. We were discussing 'propitiation' in the context of the atonement and he asked me, "I'm just curious if you're coming from a TULIP perspective. The way you describe how the wrath of God is still on the sinner," he explained, "the language you use, it is similar to Limited Atonement, where Christ's death was only efficacious for an elect group."

"Except that was from John 3:36," I replied, "not any of Calvin's writings or the Canons of Dordrecht, etc. God, his wrath, sinners, propitiation, all these terms were derived from the Scriptures."

"I know, and I don't question the biblical nature of what you're saying. But there is an apparent resemblance between the two ideas."

"Question for you, then," I said. "If all these terms are scripturally derived and scripturally consistent, why are they 'Calvinist' terms and not 'Christian' terms? Should they not be 'Christian' terms, and when we talk about these things, shouldn't we be viewed as 'Christian' rather than 'Calvinist'?"

Even a false prophet can utter some truths. The question is the criteria by which we determine whether or not he has uttered any truth, and that criteria is Scriptures. Like others here have said, what we must do is subject our beliefs to a brutally honest critical examination against God's Word, through a responsible hermeneutic of sound exegesis of the text of Scriptures. I was an Arminian for so long because I didn't search the Scriptures daily; I took it for granted that my pastor and certain Christian writers were presenting a biblically consistent message. I affirm the doctrines of grace today because I stopped taking things for granted and started studying Scriptures exhaustively, and noticed that this level of study tore apart one paradigm while it established another.

 

[heymikey80]

Please, non-Calvinists, do not respond. I know what your opinion is on this subject. You have other platforms to express your thoughts on this.

Just trying to test the spirits... what about Calvin and Servetus?
* * *
Did he really recommend Servetus be killed? If so, what are we to do with his teachings?

Again non-Calvinists, please do not respond. Bring this up somewhere else; the title of this forum is "Ask a Calvinist."

I appreciate your understanding.

Yes he really recommended Servetus be killed. We're to embrace Calvin's teachings.

It amazes me that the circumstances of Servetus' ridicule are no better acknowledged today. We like to put blinders on and judge people, apparently. But ... let's put it in perspective.

Our culture values freedom above life. Yet in our culture, if you cuss out a judge, especially from the bench, you lose that freedom. The judge may hold you quite a long period for contempt of court. If you credibly provoke people to overthrow the government, you can be imprisoned for treason.

Servetus was also fomenting revolution in the state, attacking the state's leaders and trying to convince others that they should all unite and overthrow the government. That's a treasonous offense.

Calvin was not merely contradicted. He was attacked, denounced, ridiculed by Servetus. Servetus was not being kind. Nor did Servetus show any respect for the court he was brought before, he was rather demeaning against the legal court as well.

What's more, the tiny state around Geneva was being challenged on every side to hand over Servetus for execution. Germany stated they would burn him. France had already convicted him. In Italy he would've been at the mercy of the Pope himself.

Geneva itself was hard-pressed as a small Protestant state in the midst of demands made on it from every side. It was also confronted with a very obvious challenge of Protestant government, whether they could recognize and punish not simply the heretic, but also the rebel.

Interestingly the case of Servetus was not quickly carted out as a point of Geneva's unjustice. It took quite a long time -- about a hundred years -- before Enlightenment scientists began their own Inquisition into Geneva's religious politics and publicized this case.

Frankly, I've little objection to the just determination of the death sentence of Servetus. But I like Calvin himself object to the manner of the sentence. Given the times Servetus should have been sentenced the death of a political rebel -- beheading. That was his real crime. Calvin recognized it and had him brought to court. The court was so offended by Servetus, however, that it had Servetus burned at the stake as a heretic -- a sentence, if I'm not mistaken, Calvin had criticized as un-Biblical because of its abuse by the Inquisition.

 

[cdevidal]

Does anyone know of any unbiased reviews of the Servetus controversy?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Does anyone know of any unbiased reviews of the Servetus controversy?

Sorry cdevidal, but there is no one in this world who is unbiased. There is no neutrality and we all bring prejudices and presuppositions to every though and deed that we are involved in.

The only 100 percent "correct" view of Servetus is God's and we will hear His proclamation only on Judgement day. All the rest of us are biased. There are good and bad historians, good and bad theologians, etc..., but they all bring cultural and personal biases and prejudices to every thing they do.

Your best bet is to (this aint easy) read the writings of thise involved. Read Calvin, Servertus and the many other s involved for whom we still have their writings on the subject.

In Christ,
Kenith

Ps: I wish you well in your search.