From a Calvinist to Calvinists -- Servetus

[Rick Otto]

I simply say, "I'm "Calvinist" in my soteriology but part ways with him on ecclesiology, especialy in the area of church discipline."

 

[mlqurgw]

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

I must wonder why the interest in the Servetus controversey is so important. If, as you say, you are trying to determine whether Calvin was a false prophet I believe that is something you must determine yourself according to whatever standard you believe to be correct. I applaud your desire for knowledge and understanding but I also believe you have been given adaequate answers to your questions. Men do not always act according to their theology and are still sinners in this body of death. If you are trying to determine what makes a man a false prophet that is another subject altogether. I too wish you well in your search.

 

[heymikey80]

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?

Let's consider the path that Calvin was wrong on this issue.

Calvin never called himself a prophet of God. He was simply a follower and a theologian, a Reformer true. But he was not an inspired prophet of God, commissioned to speak without a single error God's holy words.

Were this the case you could certainly turn your back on your own views and beliefs, correct? Because you've no doubt said things about God that aren't true. Are you a prophet? No less than Calvin was. In fact you have likely reached more reading eyes than Calvin's books first did.

So I'm just not sure you're following a path to a reasoned conclusion in the first place. I don't think Geneva (and Calvin) are well understood now 450 years later. But I don't think Calvin would really want someone following him assuming he's a prophet. And I don't think God would, either.

Heaven help you if you follow after Luther along these lines. Everyone was very familiar with his foibles, his brashness and temper, saying things he later regretted and retracted. And there were other points he never retracted.

And lesser reformers? Wow, their errors make me cringe; though not quite as much as certain elders of large churches at the time.

So I say with others, "Let God be true, and every man a liar."

 

[bradfordl]

So, what's the big problem with burning heretics, anyway? If Miller, Finney, or Russell had been torched at the start of their "ministries", maybe the teenage Jehovah's Witnesses that came to my door today would not have been so screwed up as they were. Maybe burning's kinda harsh, but stoning's not much better, and that was what God said should be done. Maybe you want to debate that with Him?

 

[cdevidal]

I must wonder why the interest in the Servetus controversey is so important.

Answer: Jesus considered it important to give us guidelines for determining a false teacher or prophet. If it's important to Him, it's important to me.

If the determinination of a false prophet is by their fruit, and if murder is a bad fruit (I don't think there's any who would disagree), and if Calvin really wanted to murder Servetus, isn't it likely Calvin was a false prophet who twisted Scripture?

So the argument that I once used, "the actions of a sinful man do not refute sound doctrine" is shaky, according to Jesus.


But

I'm coming to the conclusion that Calvin did not desire to murder someone who would disagree with him personally but wanted the same justice I desire when I want a criminal to have the chair. I'm believing it's not murder he wanted but a Romans 13-like capital justice he desired.


Especially since this is the only spot on his record. Methinks a true false prophet would have more crimes.

If, as you say, you are trying to determine whether Calvin was a false prophet I believe that is something you must determine yourself according to whatever standard you believe to be correct.

You're right, and that standard is Matthew 7.

 

[cdevidal]

Maybe burning's kinda harsh, but stoning's not much better, and that was what God said should be done. Maybe you want to debate that with Him?

I'd considered that, but:
A.) I don't believe those OT commands apply to us in Christ today
B.) The implication of non-Calvinists is that Calvin wanted to murder Servetus only on the basis of being an opponent. If that's true, and I doubt that it is, then we should likely think he'd twisted scripture, according to Matthew 7.

I think it is more likely he had a desire for justice ala Romans 13, the same desire I have for wanting to see a criminal get the chair. A godly, society-purifying desire.

 

[cdevidal]

Calvin never called himself a prophet of God.

Yeah but I think that's a shaky argument. If a teacher such as Calvin were saying things that appear to be true but but on the side is a drug runner and a mafia member and runs a whorehouse, I think you'd be safe to apply Jesus' warnings in Matthew 7 to them and believe they were twisting and manipulating Scripture. I believe Jesus wanted us to know who were the wolves in sheeps clothing by that test.

See the problem is not that Calvin said things that were correct. Even Satan said things that were correct in the garden or in the wilderness with Jesus. The problem is the twisting and manipulating that influenced Eve and would have influenced Christ to go off -- in the name of Scripture! -- into a direction God never intended.

Since this is the only spot on Calvin's record and since it appears he merely desired justice ala Romans 13 and not murder (or at least, it's difficult to prove), I don't believe Matthew 7 applies, so I feel satisfied on this issue.


I really think we should wrestle with God over our beliefs. Wrestle with the Scriptures.

I have been taught for 5 years that TULIP is correct. I believe it, but I am in the process of really testing it. And it's coming up shining, particularly the very controversial L. The most exciting thing is the Arminian's interpretations of their proof texts just aren't holding water. There are very simple explainations which demonstrate how they don't contradict TULIP.

"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)

 

[cdevidal]

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

By the way, I just observed that this statement might have felt like a slap in your face, that I didn't believe you. Not at all! Quite the opposite! You've influenced me to feel settled on the issue. I just wanted to have a closer look. Most of the sources I've seen have either attacked or defended Calvin but I've seen none that leave it to the reader to decide.

And while I realize there are no unbiased sources, I was wondering if perhaps there were some summaries (overviews) of the event that tried to fairly represent both sides.

 

[cdevidal]

I simply say, "I'm "Calvinist" in my soteriology but part ways with him on ecclesiology, especialy in the area of church discipline."

Touche!

 

[bradfordl]

Calvin never used the acronym TULIP. I don't take on the names of men myself, but if someone wants to call my theology calvinist, I don't argue with them, that's just how they can best describe it, I suppose. I prefer to call myself Christian, and the doctrines represented by TULIP biblical truth. And biblical truth is never shaded by the character of the men who expound it. As men, their character is always clouded in some manner, but truth remains truth. And I believe every person is a false prophet in some measure. Thank the Lord for the covering of His Blood.

 

[UMP]

Calvin never used the acronym TULIP. I don't take on the names of men myself, but if someone wants to call my theology calvinist, I don't argue with them, that's just how they can best describe it, I suppose. I prefer to call myself Christian, and the doctrines represented by TULIP biblical truth. And biblical truth is never shaded by the character of the men who expound it. As men, their character is always clouded in some manner, but truth remains truth. And I believe every person is a false prophet in some measure. Thank the Lord for the covering of His Blood.

 

[cdevidal]

This was helpful. I like Tim Challies...

http://www.challies.com/archives/001318.php

 

[cdevidal]

Calvin never used the acronym TULIP.

Correct, it was coined after his death.

I don't take on the names of men myself, but if someone wants to call my theology calvinist, I don't argue with them, that's just how they can best describe it, I suppose. I prefer to call myself Christian, and the doctrines represented by TULIP biblical truth.

Amen.

And biblical truth is never shaded by the character of the men who expound it.

Well, yes and no. Perhaps Calvin twisted Scriptural truth ever so slightly in a way that pleased Satan.

If you were to ask Jesus just after His Matthew 7 sermon, "if I see a teacher who preaches some things that appear to be Biblical truth and yet he murders someone, does he fall under the same judgement you just passed?" I cannot imagine he would say no. I imagine He would say, "That teacher will twist Scripture so that you cannot trust the things he says."

Remember, Satan gave an (almost) perfect sermon in the wilderness!

The solution, I believe, is not to argue that the teacher is speaking truth and so we should ignore his character. The solution, I believe, is to try your best to discern whether the Servetus fruit was bad.

Fortunately, I don't believe it was. :-D

And I believe every person is a false prophet in some measure. Thank the Lord for the covering of His Blood.

Amen amen. We are totally depraved, are we not?

 

[bradfordl]

Well, yes and no. Perhaps Calvin twisted Scriptural truth ever so slightly in a way that pleased Satan.

I believe what the bible says. If men haved labelled biblical truth with the name calvinism, that's their business, and whether Calvin himself was a false prophet is immaterial. I don't need Calvin, or any of his writings, to believe the scriptures, or even to understand them better. All I need is what my Savior promised to give me, His Holy Spirit. To be honest, I find Calvin's Institutes to be plodding and at points overly argumentative. But if Calvin were a flaming heretic that should have been tied to the stake with Servetus, that would not cause me to question the biblical truth that some folks call calvinism, because that truth is not clouded by Calvin's character. It stood long before Calvin drew breath, and will stand forever onward, eternally without end, amen.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello cdevidal,

It is certain that Calvin was a sinner, just like you and me. He was not Christ. He made errors and sinned daily like you and I do.

Have you read him and other men of his time? (I hope you have)
I have read a good deal of his writings (personal letters, commentaries and Institutes) and I can say that I believe that Calvin was greatly used of God, and he is, even now, 500 years later still worth reading. He had great insights and wisdom that can help us even today.

Is he culpable in the death of Servetus? Yes he is, to some extent, as were most Reformed, Lutheran and Catholic leaders of his day. Were thay all false prophets because they believed Servetus should have been put to death? I think not.

Are all Protestants, who believed the USA should invade Iraq, guilty and have a false faith because they supported a war where (judicially) innocent people have died?

I think this whole thing is silly because we are all sinners and Calvin's fault in the death of Servetus is no greater than the guilt of other true believers through the ages.

Did Calvin have feet of clay? Yes he did. So do you and I. Are wee false prophets when we proclaim Christ?

If we condemn Calvin because ef Servetus, then what of David or every other believer who has sinned horribly after his or her converstion? If such a standard is valid. than we are all without hope.

I hope someone finds these thoughts helpful.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[heymikey80]

Yeah but I think that's a shaky argument. If a teacher such as Calvin were saying things that appear to be true but but on the side is a drug runner and a mafia member and runs a whorehouse, I think you'd be safe to apply Jesus' warnings in Matthew 7 to them and believe they were twisting and manipulating Scripture. I believe Jesus wanted us to know who were the wolves in sheeps clothing by that test.

Running drugs is a very different intent from submitting the Old Testament Law given by God to what you see as its logical conclusion.

A teacher's intent must be maligned by his actions. In this case only controversy surrounds that allegation. Calvin defended himself as a political officer of the then-theocratic, Protestant government. That government -- among whom many were his enemies, btw -- brought court and determined the offender deserved far worse punishment than Calvin thought. Again, this is a fact of history.

See the problem is not that Calvin said things that were correct. Even Satan said things that were correct in the garden or in the wilderness with Jesus. The problem is the twisting and manipulating that influenced Eve and would have influenced Christ to go off -- in the name of Scripture! -- into a direction God never intended.

Yes, but you'd need to demonstrate that Calvin sought something outside of God's intent. In this case Servetus fits the profile as someone who blasphemes God, and attacks, defames, and seeks the overthrow of those in government.

Servetus was also an eccentric, genius ideologue. Don't get me wrong, a great mind, if rather strident and subversive.

Also keep in mind, exile would not work in this case. Servetus had sought refuge in Geneva. No other country in Europe would take him without quickly imprisoning him and burning him alive. That's an historical fact.

Since this is the only spot on Calvin's record and since it appears he merely desired justice ala Romans 13 and not murder (or at least, it's difficult to prove), I don't believe Matthew 7 applies, so I feel satisfied on this issue.

To me it's highly relevant that it wasn't a spot on his record for years after he committed it. In point of fact, Calvin was applauded by the Germans as demonstrating that Protestant government could protect itself and not drown in its own principles of personal faith. Only when the Enlightenment came along, and John Locke hit on this idea of freedom of religion did his actions come into negative focus.

Calvin didn't die with this on his conscience.

Our Enlightenment view is 1600 years removed from the last time God spoke. Who's really reflecting God's will better? It's a tough question frought with difficulty -- in some ways Calvin was right; in other ways we're right. It took a couple hundred years before Jefferson could say of his political enemies, "Let them stand as testimony to the degree which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." It's even something over which Calvinists still disagree. The Westminster Confession itself was revised over exactly this issue when it crossed the Atlantic.

So what we can't resolve on after hundreds of years, it's unlikely to expect one generation's teacher to get completely right.

I really think we should wrestle with God over our beliefs. Wrestle with the Scriptures.

Definitely.

I have been taught for 5 years that TULIP is correct. I believe it, but I am in the process of really testing it. And it's coming up shining, particularly the very controversial L. The most exciting thing is the Arminian's interpretations of their proof texts just aren't holding water. There are very simple explainations which demonstrate how they don't contradict TULIP.

"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)

My experience as well, now 25 years ago.