John Calvin murdered?

[Communion]

What about John the Baptist? He was around in Jesus' days. I'd say we have a head start compared to all the other Christians considering Jesus said no one born of women is greater than John. Sooo... scratch all others from the list (save Jesus).

you made me lol

 

[aniello]

Well I got brave, or foolish, and looked at some of the stuff from that 'pope of .....' reference. Whew! Nobody could be as crazy as they make Calvin to be, NO SALE, no way! I'm sure he wasn't perfect but the fact remains he is probably the most influential reformer that I know of anyway.

I don't happen to hold to the English Separaist theory of Baptist history. I hold to the spiritual kinship view. We have been around much longer than 300 years.

mlqurgw,

I have heard several times what I think you are pointing to in your last 2 sentences above, which I sure would like to get some information about. Where do I go to gain such? My granddaughter gave me this laptop about 3 months ago and I am just barely learning to get around on the thing. I have heard that Baptists go back to the original church, but I don't know that for sure, to me it is interesting.

It's no big deal, I don't think, but my family's forebearers, some of them, were in Connecticutt colony in 1636-38, name was Leete. No big deal, just interesting to me. Well, come to think of it, my relatives of my dad's family were there too.

What interests me is, on the spiritual level, where we can claim we came from. The RCC pretty much eliminated everyone that didn't bow to the Pope and their screwey religion.

 

[mlqurgw]

Well I got brave, or foolish, and looked at some of the stuff from that 'pope of .....' reference. Whew! Nobody could be as crazy as they make Calvin to be, NO SALE, no way! I'm sure he wasn't perfect but the fact remains he is probably the most influential reformer that I know of anyway.



mlqurgw,

I have heard several times what I think you are pointing to in your last 2 sentences above, which I sure would like to get some information about. Where do I go to gain such? My granddaughter gave me this laptop about 3 months ago and I am just barely learning to get around on the thing. I have heard that Baptists go back to the original church, but I don't know that for sure, to me it is interesting.

It's no big deal, I don't think, but my family's forebearers, some of them, were in Connecticutt colony in 1636-38, name was Leete. No big deal, just interesting to me. Well, come to think of it, my relatives of my dad's family were there too.

What interests me is, on the spiritual level, where we can claim we came from. The RCC pretty much eliminated everyone that didn't bow to the Pope and their screwey religion.

I don't know if it is even in print anymore but Cook's Baptist history is full of information. The Spiritual kinship view holds that there were groups preserved all along that held to certain distinctives that Baptist have held to. They weren't called Baptists but did hold to those things that historically made Baptists Baptists. How deep do you want to go? I have several books on Baptist history that we can look into.

BTW, you can call me Ron.

 

[mlqurgw]

Well I got brave, or foolish, and looked at some of the stuff from that 'pope of .....' reference. Whew! Nobody could be as crazy as they make Calvin to be, NO SALE, no way! I'm sure he wasn't perfect but the fact remains he is probably the most influential reformer that I know of anyway.



mlqurgw,

I have heard several times what I think you are pointing to in your last 2 sentences above, which I sure would like to get some information about. Where do I go to gain such? My granddaughter gave me this laptop about 3 months ago and I am just barely learning to get around on the thing. I have heard that Baptists go back to the original church, but I don't know that for sure, to me it is interesting.

It's no big deal, I don't think, but my family's forebearers, some of them, were in Connecticutt colony in 1636-38, name was Leete. No big deal, just interesting to me. Well, come to think of it, my relatives of my dad's family were there too.

What interests me is, on the spiritual level, where we can claim we came from. The RCC pretty much eliminated everyone that didn't bow to the Pope and their screwey religion.

This would be a pretty good place to start:

A CRITIQUE OF THE ENGLISH SEPARATIST DESCENT THEORY IN BAPTIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

 

[RobertZ]

I didnt mean any harm by starting this thread so I hope I didnt upset or offend anyone. I was merely curious as to what the story was behind all of this.

 

[JM]

I don't happen to hold to the English Separaist theory of Baptist history. I hold to the spiritual kinship view. We have been around much longer than 300 years.

Ron, do you believe in the "trail of blood?" If not, how do you trace the spiritual kinship view without a trail?

jm

 

[General Mung Beans]

He's the same as Luther and Zwingli and the Catholic Popes ~ they considered us (baptists, though back then we would be classified as anabaptists) as heretics since we practiced believer's baptism. Why would I read from someone that thinks we're heretics? Works fine for the Presbyterians and Lutherans and Reformed but then we aren't them...or maybe we are.

The Particular Baptists were with the other Reformed and Puritan groups at least in England.

As for John Calvin's murder of Michael Servetus-I condemn it with all my heart. He sinned gravely in doing this-I hope God led him to see the error of his actions.

 

[aniello]

mlq....== Ron it is,

Thank you for the ref. to Reformed Reader, I immediately bookmarked it. Only had a chance to skim it, it has a lot of resources it looks like, GREAT!!

RobertZ,

I certainly was not offended, for my part. But this thing. There are people out there that would complain or put down anything, they wouldn't be happy, even if they got their own way. They are a burden to one's soul. I try to avoid them beyond a point, getting old I guess. I can remember, Christmas of 1940, just before WW II, my grandfather walking through the snows of far northern Minnnesota, to bring my sister and me candied apples on a stick, we were absolutely thrilled. I was 5. Nowadays we have a culture that is brats to the max, ingrates that feel because they exist they are entitled to everything from soup to BMWs. I like Porsches. It is no harm to be honestly inquisitive, but be careful not to be gullible, falling for every wind of doctrine(or however it's worded correctly), be discerning with The Spirit. I think The Word is always the Supreme Authority.

May I say that in surrender to Him is freedom. A seeming paradox. Jesus paid it ALL. Only Jesus, none other.

The ultimate reality shall be Jesus, Sovereign over all. Entirely grace.

Now to go read. Thank you, Ron

 

[mlqurgw]

Ron, do you believe in the "trail of blood?" If not, how do you trace the spiritual kinship view without a trail?

jm

The difference in the spiritual kinship view and the " Trail of Blood" is that I don't believe it is a link chain succession that can be traced by church to church fron the Apostles. I believe that there were always those who held to Baptist beliefs but not in a link chain that such as the Landmarkers or the RCC hold to.

 

[DeaconDean]

Lets set the record straight here.

I don't know how many times this issue has come up in the past, and it just keeps getting thrown back up in the face of Calvinists.

For the record, Michael Servetus was preaching heresy. Heresy at the time was punishable by death. Most people here argue that the Bible must be intreperted in light of the times. Same principle here.

First off, Michael Servetus was warned not to come to Geneva, yet he did anyway knowing full well what would happen if he did.

Secondly, John Calvin was approached by the council at Geneva to be the council of the prosecution. He did not go to them, they came to him.

Thirdly, he was not the prosecuter, his health prevented that. But he did appear in court as a witness against him.

Fourthly, John Calvin may have witnessed aginst him, but the ultimate sentence was decided by the jury.

Fifthly, the council was the one who ultimately passed sentence on Servetus, not John Calvin.

Sixthly, John Calvin pleaded with the council to spare his life, but it was to no avail.

If you get caught stealing, and your convicted of a crime, who do you blame?

The lawyer who tried you? The jury that convicted you? The judge who passed sentence on you?

Or do you blame yourself?

With all the terrorist warnings going out against Americans traveling to Middle Eastern Countries in Europe, if you go and your hotel is bombed, and you lose a loved one, who are you going to blame?

The Hotel? The Government? Or are you going to take responsibility for ignoring the warnings and going anyway?

Last but not least, has anybody took the time to read just exactly what it was Michael Servetus was teaching that got him into so much trouble?

Evidently not.

Strange how people want to defend the person who laid the foundations for Socinian movement and the Unitarians.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[mlqurgw]

Lets set the record straight here.

I don't know how many times this issue has come up in the past, and it just keeps getting thrown back up in the face of Calvinists.

For the record, Michael Servetus was preaching heresy. Heresy at the time was punishable by death. Most people here argue that the Bible must be intreperted in light of the times. Same principle here.

First off, Michael Servetus was warned not to come to Geneva, yet he did anyway knowing full well what would happen if he did.

Secondly, John Calvin was approached by the council at Geneva to be the council of the prosecution. He did not go to them, they came to him.

Thirdly, he was not the prosecuter, his health prevented that. But he did appear in court as a witness against him.

Fourthly, John Calvin may have witnessed aginst him, but the ultimate sentence was decided by the jury.

Fifthly, the council was the one who ultimately passed sentence on Servetus, not John Calvin.

Sixthly, John Calvin pleaded with the council to spare his life, but it was to no avail.

If you get caught stealing, and your convicted of a crime, who do you blame?

The lawyer who tried you? The jury that convicted you? The judge who passed sentence on you?

Or do you blame yourself?

With all the terrorist warnings going out against Americans traveling to Middle Eastern Countries in Europe, if you go and your hotel is bombed, and you lose a loved one, who are you going to blame?

The Hotel? The Government? Or are you going to take responsibility for ignoring the warnings and going anyway?

Last but not least, has anybody took the time to read just exactly what it was Michael Servetus was teaching that got him into so much trouble?

Evidently not.

Strange how people want to defend the person who laid the foundations for Socinian movement and the Unitarians.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JM]

The difference in the spiritual kinship view and the " Trail of Blood" is that I don't believe it is a link chain succession that can be traced by church to church fron the Apostles. I believe that there were always those who held to Baptist beliefs but not in a link chain that such as the Landmarkers or the RCC hold to.

I agree with that but also with Spurgeon who said, we are the heir of the puritans. Whatever the state of the Baptist churches before Puritan separatism in England we cannot, historically, trace our roots before this period. So I agree with both positions.

 

[Communion]

Lets set the record straight here.

I don't know how many times this issue has come up in the past, and it just keeps getting thrown back up in the face of Calvinists.

For the record, Michael Servetus was preaching heresy. Heresy at the time was punishable by death. Most people here argue that the Bible must be intreperted in light of the times. Same principle here.

First off, Michael Servetus was warned not to come to Geneva, yet he did anyway knowing full well what would happen if he did.

Secondly, John Calvin was approached by the council at Geneva to be the council of the prosecution. He did not go to them, they came to him.

Thirdly, he was not the prosecuter, his health prevented that. But he did appear in court as a witness against him.

Fourthly, John Calvin may have witnessed aginst him, but the ultimate sentence was decided by the jury.

Fifthly, the council was the one who ultimately passed sentence on Servetus, not John Calvin.

Sixthly, John Calvin pleaded with the council to spare his life, but it was to no avail.

If you get caught stealing, and your convicted of a crime, who do you blame?

The lawyer who tried you? The jury that convicted you? The judge who passed sentence on you?

Or do you blame yourself?

With all the terrorist warnings going out against Americans traveling to Middle Eastern Countries in Europe, if you go and your hotel is bombed, and you lose a loved one, who are you going to blame?

The Hotel? The Government? Or are you going to take responsibility for ignoring the warnings and going anyway?

Last but not least, has anybody took the time to read just exactly what it was Michael Servetus was teaching that got him into so much trouble?

Evidently not.

Strange how people want to defend the person who laid the foundations for Socinian movement and the Unitarians.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Makes sense, but then does this excuse the executions by the catholics as well?

In any event shows religion and politics do not mix well..

 

[ThePresbyteers]

I was reading a bit into the history of John Calvin and found information claiming that he murdered people and bragged about it? Okay what in the world is going on here?

In the old times, the murders were the work of the Catholics Christians. It's like Obama. If Obama wants something but the congress won't let him, everyone blames Obama for that. People blamed Calvin for the work of the Catholics. It was the people that wanted to burn people that were anti-Catholics or anti-Calvinism, mostly armininians. Calvin begged for a less painful execution like beheading instead of burning heretics. So the blame for the excution was put on Calvin since he was the most popular priest in that town or the head of the protestant group in the area. So in truth, Calvin wasn't given any choices. He chooses not to kill anyone. The people did ask for Calvin's permission but Calvin didn't have a choice but to allow the people to murder. It was a tradition back then.

 

[christian73]

In the old times, the murders were the work of the Catholics Christians. It's like Obama. If Obama wants something but the congress won't let him, everyone blames Obama for that. People blamed Calvin for the work of the Catholics. It was the people that wanted to burn people that were anti-Catholics or anti-Calvinism, mostly armininians. Calvin begged for a less painful execution like beheading instead of burning heretics. So the blame for the excution was put on Calvin since he was the most popular priest in that town or the head of the protestant group in the area. So in truth, Calvin wasn't given any choices. He chooses not to kill anyone. The people did ask for Calvin's permission but Calvin didn't have a choice but to allow the people to murder. It was a tradition back then.

Wow! Very interesting. I didn't know that.

 

[aniello]

Presbyteers

"It was the people that wanted to burn people that were anti-Catholics or anti-Calvinism, mostly armininians."

Calvin died in 1564. Jacobus Arminius was born in 1560. How could a 4 year old and a following that did not yet exist affect anything Calvin did or did not do? How????

 

[DeaconDean]

Michael Servetus was the most renowned heretic in Europe of that day. He was captured by the Roman Catholic Church in France and sentenced to death but he managed to escape. One day, as Calvin is preaching at Geneva, who should walk into the palce of Worship, but Michael Servetus. And of course, Servetus was then arrested in Geneva, beause he was wanted throughout Europe as the most notorious heretic, for denying the Deity of Christ, and writing books arguing his beliefs. But Calvin far from is often depicted, being the cruel tyrant of Geneva and far from having anything to do with putting Michael Servetus to death, when Servetus was imprison while on trial, Calvin was a frequent visitor to Servetus in his prison cell, trying to win him for Christ. Calvin spent many hours, trying to win the most notorious heretic of Europe, for Christ!

When Servetus was put on trial, Calvin’s sole part in the whole affair was as an expert witness to testify against Servetus’ theology. He had to affirm that Servetus was indeed denying the Deity of Christ. And who better fitted for the job in Geneva than that of John Calvin? Calvin had no powers to make any decisions as far as law enforcements, or sentencing. He was a pastor not a magistrate or judge. Calvin himself was driven out of Geneva by the powers of Geneva, as Calvin was no a power at all, he had no authority in that way whatsoever,. The only other thing John Calvin had any hand in as far as Servetus, was to plead on Sevetus behalf, for a more humane way of Servetus being putting to death than the order of execution had sentenced. Again, he was not acting against Servetus but for him and with great compassion, no matter that Servetus was the most renowned heretic in Europe.


The day Servetus was to be executed. Calvin again visited him in his prison cell, and one last time tried to win him for Christ. But to no avail. But please before you tar John Calvin with the name of being the man who murdered Michael Servetus or had any hand in his fate apart from extending him great compassion and his pastors heart wanting to win him for Christ please make sure you have all the facts, as all the above is not beyond being researched and found out, Calvin’s letters is a good place to start, rather than settling for the anti John Calvin writings that are out there as the truth about the matter.

John Calvin and Michael Servetus

And what was it Michael Servetus actually taught?

In these books, Servetus rejected the belief of the Trinity, stating that it was not based on the Bible. He argued that it arose from teachings of (Greek) philosophers, and he advocated a return to the simplicity of the Gospels and the teachings of the early Church Fathers that he believed pre-dated the development of trinitarianism. Servetus hoped that the dismissal of the Trinitarian dogma would make Christianity more appealing to believers in Judaism and Islam, which had preserved the unity of God in their teachings. According to Servetus, trinitarians had turned Christianity into a form of "tritheism", or belief in three gods. Servetus affirmed that the divine Logos, the manifestation of God and not a separate divine Person, was incarnated in a human being, Jesus, when God's spirit came into the womb of the Virgin Mary. Only from the moment of conception, was the Son actually generated. Therefore the Son was not eternal, but only the Logos from which He was formed. For this reason, Servetus always rejected calling Christ the "eternal Son of God" but rather called him "the Son of the eternal God." In describing Servetus' view of the Logos, Andrew Dibb explained: "In 'Genesis' God reveals himself as the creator. In 'John' he reveals that he created by means of the Word, or Logos. Finally, also in 'John', he shows that this Logos became flesh and 'dwelt among us'. Creation took place by the spoken word, for God said "Let there be ..." The spoken word of Genesis, the Logos of John, and the Christ, are all one and the same."

Michael Servetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Servetus work: Trinitatis Erroribus (On the Error of the Trinity) can be found on the world wide web, if one so desires to look for it.

Servetus taught that every time God spoke, the words coming out of his mouth were Christ since Christ is referred to as "logos".

CHRIST, the Son of man, who descended from heaven, was the Word by uttering which God created the world.
​

Michael Servetus, Errors of the Trinity

He taught that there was no such thing as the trinity.

The Holy Spirit as a third person of the Godhead is unknown in Scripture.
​

Michael Servetus, Errors of the Trinity

He also taught that Christ did not exist in eternity past, He only came into existance when He was born of Mary.

That Jesus, surnamed Christ, was not a Hypostasis but a human being
​

Michael Servetus, Errors of the Trinity

The incomprehensible God is known through Christ, by faith, rather than by philosophical speculation.
​

Michael Servetus, Errors of the Trinity

The eternally begotten Son was a spoken word by which God made himself known.
​

Michael Servetus, Errors of the Trinity

And in essence, he even denied that Christ was God.

The term Nature is appropriate only to God; the Word no longer exist; Person means a representation of another being; Christ incarnate, is the image of the Substance, but not of the Nature, of God.
​

Michael Servetus, Errors of the Trinity

Please read and do your research before making accusations against John Calvin for something he had no control over.

God BLess

Till all are one.

 

[ThePresbyteers]

Presbyteers

"It was the people that wanted to burn people that were anti-Catholics or anti-Calvinism, mostly armininians."

Calvin died in 1564. Jacobus Arminius was born in 1560. How could a 4 year old and a following that did not yet exist affect anything Calvin did or did not do? How????

I meant arminian flavors, the spicy Pelagianism. Names changed throughtout time.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Well done, DeaconDean!! Bravo!

 

[Marcus Constantine]

I'm not one to cast Calvin or any of the other reformers in some great, holy light. They were men that made mistakes. In my opinion, none of Reformers had doctrine all sorted out - many held on to Roman Catholic teachings, like pedobaptism, because they sought to reform the Roman church (hence the name). To the point at hand, though: Servetus was a medical doctrine that wrote theological treatises on the side. He was escaping from the Inquisition in France when he passed through Geneva. Part of Servetus' beliefs was non-Trinitarian, but his main focus was actually the separation of Church and State - which was desperately needed in Geneva and throughout Europe. I think this combined with the non-Trinitarian teaching to make the Genevans (and the other Swiss cantons) move to have him condemned as a heretic. I do think that they were wrong in burning him to death - there is nothing in Scripture that states that burning a heretic is a good thing to do. The New Testament speaks of not heeding false teachers and not letting them gain a foothold in your congregation or life, but it never says "If you see a false teacher passing through town, make sure you burn them!" That being said, Calvin did push to have a less harsh sentence enforced, but when the mob wants a burning . . . you give the mob a burning, I suppose. Here, I have illustrated this scene with smileys . . . it is historically accurate (it contains from left to right: the mob, Calvin, some Catholic priest looking guy because he looked cool, and then Servetus):