Michael Servetus

[PatrickM]

Who was he, and what was his role in church history?

 

[A. believer]

Who was he, and what was his role in church history?

Michael Servetus was a heretic from the Reformation era who was sentenced to burn at the stake by a tribunal in Geneva. His name is most often associated with the Reformer/theologian Jean Calvin who is often wrongly said to have ordered his sentence. Truthfully, though, Calvin had no authority in the matter, and he, himself, was imprisoned by the same authorities who sentenced Servetus just a short time before Servetus's sentencing. Here's a fascinating article on the whole affair.

What Love Indeed

 

[Bulldog]

Michael Servetus was a heretic from the Reformation era who was sentenced to burn at the stake by a tribunal in Geneva. His name is most often associated with the Reformer/theologian Jean Calvin who is often wrongly said to have ordered his sentence. Truthfully, though, Calvin had no authority in the matter, and he, himself, was imprisoned by the same authorities who sentenced Servetus just a short time before Servetus's sentencing. Here's a fascinating article on the whole affair.

What Love Indeed

Not to mention one of the pioneers of Unitiarianism.

 

[PatrickM]

Michael Servetus was a heretic from the Reformation era who was sentenced to burn at the stake by a tribunal in Geneva. His name is most often associated with the Reformer/theologian Jean Calvin who is often wrongly said to have ordered his sentence. Truthfully, though, Calvin had no authority in the matter, and he, himself, was imprisoned by the same authorities who sentenced Servetus just a short time before Servetus's sentencing. Here's a fascinating article on the whole affair.

What Love Indeed

Though this man was no saint, literally or figuratively, it is sad as to how he died.

Your link contains much words to defend Calvin’s approval of this man’s execution. Has anyone ever heard of this author? Well on a site promoting his book, we read:

About the Author:
Emanuel Stickelberger was a business man who wrote historical novels (Calvin and Zwingli). The University of Basel granted him the honorary degree of Doctor of Theology.

Apparently, this book is a fictional novel, and it’s author’s qualifications are not very impressive as an expert in historical matters.

And a few excerpts from this fictional novel (again, per you link):

“Calvin had no doubt whatsoever as to the danger that threatened his life work from this angle. He was about to make the city entrusted to him a fortress for the pure doctrine . . .” Interesting motivation.

“Even during the first days of the trial, Calvin wrote to Farel that he wished to spare the people's seducer from a painful death.” However, not to spare him from actual execution. Again, all this according to this author’s “fictional novel.”

“He made every possible effort, gathered the preachers in order to bring about by unanimous petition a moderation of the death penalty.” Perhaps true, however, not much comfort, as it was still the death penalty!

“Moreover, had Calvin's wish been granted and the fire penalty mitigated to an execution by sword, little fuss would have been made about it.” I’m not too sure, as a sword execution isn’t much fun, either.

On the other hand, much of this is account is rather optimistic, according to Dr. Bruce Shelley, Senior Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Denver Theological Seminary.

In his book, “Church History in Plain English”, though it is true Calvin did not desire to see Servetus burned at the stake, in seeing his possible position of power slipping away, “he did support the silencing of the ill-balanced thinker (Servetus).”

I think it interesting how some people, even today, can be so zealous towards their “theology”, as to miss Christ’s greater “theology”, such as love your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you, repay not evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.

 

[A. believer]

Though this man was no saint, literally or figuratively, it is sad as to how he died.

Your link contains much words to defend Calvin’s approval of this man’s execution. Has anyone ever heard of this author? Well on a site promoting his book, we read:

About the Author:
Emanuel Stickelberger was a business man who wrote historical novels (Calvin and Zwingli). The University of Basel granted him the honorary degree of Doctor of Theology.

Apparently, this book is a fictional novel, and it’s author’s qualifications are not very impressive as an expert in historical matters.

And a few excerpts from this fictional novel (again, per you link):

“Calvin had no doubt whatsoever as to the danger that threatened his life work from this angle. He was about to make the city entrusted to him a fortress for the pure doctrine . . .” Interesting motivation.

“Even during the first days of the trial, Calvin wrote to Farel that he wished to spare the people's seducer from a painful death.” However, not to spare him from actual execution. Again, all this according to this author’s “fictional novel.”

“He made every possible effort, gathered the preachers in order to bring about by unanimous petition a moderation of the death penalty.” Perhaps true, however, not much comfort, as it was still the death penalty!

“Moreover, had Calvin's wish been granted and the fire penalty mitigated to an execution by sword, little fuss would have been made about it.” I’m not too sure, as a sword execution isn’t much fun, either.

On the other hand, much of this is account is rather optimistic, according to Dr. Bruce Shelley, Senior Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Denver Theological Seminary.

In his book, “Church History in Plain English”, though it is true Calvin did not desire to see Servetus burned at the stake, in seeing his possible position of power slipping away, “he did support the silencing of the ill-balanced thinker (Servetus).”

I think it interesting how some people, even today, can be so zealous towards their “theology”, as to miss Christ’s greater “theology”, such as love your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you, repay not evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.

On what basis do you question the author's credibility? His historical works are well-respected, and yet you casually dismiss his historical account, as if we should believe that you know better. Apparently, you didn't come here to learn something about church history, but rather to take an opportunity to slam a great theologian who was gifted with a pastor's heart.

I have little regard for the judgments of those who judge the actions of people in other time periods by the standards of their own. In the sixteenth century, there was no concept of separation of church and state. Calvin did approve of (although he played no part in) the execution of a man whose goal was to infiltrate the church with his heresies and to imperil the souls of a nation. It may not mean anything to you that Calvin pleaded for a more humane method of execution and that he diligently prayed for the conversion of the heretic before his death, but it was because of Calvin's love for his neighbors that he would desire that the newly reformed church of Geneva not fall into greater heresy than it had come out of under Roman authority. It's the duty of the state to protect its citizenry, and when the state and the church are one, that duty extends to protecting their souls. You can stand here with your 21st century perspective, criticizing Calvin for not holding to modern day presuppositions about supposedly self-evident, God-ordained notions about the separation of church and state, and most people will probably applaud you. But for those who love God and who are willing to think more critically about the matter, it's apparent that Jean Calvin was a godly man whose primary motivation in life was to glorify God.

 

[PatrickM]

On what basis do you question the author's credibility? His historical works are well-respected, and yet you casually dismiss his historical account, as if we should believe that you know better. Apparently, you didn't come here to learn something about church history, but rather to take an opportunity to slam a great theologian who was gifted with a pastor's heart.

I have little regard for the judgments of those who judge the actions of people in other time periods by the standards of their own. In the sixteenth century, there was no concept of separation of church and state. Calvin did approve of (although he played no part in) the execution of a man whose goal was to infiltrate the church with his heresies and to imperil the souls of a nation. It may not mean anything to you that Calvin pleaded for a more humane method of execution and that he diligently prayed for the conversion of the heretic before his death, but it was because of Calvin's love for his neighbors that he would desire that the newly reformed church of Geneva not fall into greater heresy than it had come out of under Roman authority. It's the duty of the state to protect its citizenry, and when the state and the church are one, that duty extends to protecting their souls. You can stand here with your 21st century perspective, criticizing Calvin for not holding to modern day presuppositions about supposedly self-evident, God-ordained notions about the separation of church and state, and most people will probably applaud you. But for those who love God and who are willing to think more critically about the matter, it's apparent that Jean Calvin was a godly man whose primary motivation in life was to glorify God.

Not necessarily the author's credibility, but his accuracy, as he was obviously biased, writing a historical "fiction" novel. His background is one of "business man", which hardly makes him an expert in the field.

Although Calvin did not want him burned at the stake, he still thought a sword "execution" was better? What did he do to merit execution? Did he kill someone? No, he merely commited the sin of disagreeing with Calvin.

Not necessarily my personal standards, as in my BC days I would have said "hangin's too good for him." But since receiving Christ, I rather go along with His statement when the soldiers were crucifying Him, to ask God to forgive them, for they knew not what they did. Who committed the greater sin, a man who was obviously in error in his doctrine, but who did not actually harm anyone, or a Roman soldier who put to death the Son of God?

I don't stand here with any 21st century perspective. I stand with the "sola scriptura" perspective, such as love your enemies, do not repay evil for evil, etc. These are not 21st century perspectives, but Jesus' perspectives.

And where did you pull out this "separation of church and state" statement? No where did I imply this. For the record I deplore how it's turned out today.

Indeed, "Jean" Calvin was a Godly man, who did much to propagate the gospel. I would like more people to realize, however, he was human, and made mistakes, some rather radical, and take things with a greater perspective.

 

[Lotar]

What credentials do you have that qualify you to declare his book a work of fiction? Does coming from a business background all of a sudden disqualify him from having any knowledge of history?

The man did much more than just disagree with Calvin.

I guess attacking Calvin's character somehow justifies your own heretical beliefs? That because heretics have been persecuted in the past for their beliefs, and that Jesus was persecuted for His beliefs, that you must be somehow right, or at least not far off? Am I correct in this assessment of the reasoning behind this thread?

 

[A. believer]

Who committed the greater sin, a man who was obviously in error in his doctrine, but who did not actually harm anyone, or a Roman soldier who put to death the Son of God?

I don't stand here with any 21st century perspective. I stand with the "sola scriptura" perspective, such as love your enemies, do not repay evil for evil, etc. These are not 21st century perspectives, but Jesus' perspectives.

And where did you pull out this "separation of church and state" statement? No where did I imply this. For the record I deplore how it's turned out today.

Indeed, "Jean" Calvin was a Godly man, who did much to propagate the gospel. I would like more people to realize, however, he was human, and made mistakes, some rather radical, and take things with a greater perspective.

If Servetus "did not actually harm anyone," it's not for lack of trying. His goal was to gain power and to make his heresies the "orthodox" teaching of the church. Heresy has always been a threat to God's people, and that threat has been dealt with in various ways throughout church history. But in the sixteenth century the thinking was that the church and the state worked together as one to further the common good of the people. Sixteenth century Geneva was a Christian society, and the execution of Michael Servetus was for the purpose of protecting the church from falling into heresy.

Jesus tells us to love our enemies, but the Old and New Testaments also teach that governing authorities are God's ministers and that they hold the power of the sword to carry out judgment, and that, I believe, was the rationale for the execution of heretics in the sixteenth century. There may not be many people who see it that way today, but to presuppose the self-evident nature of commonly held 21st century notions, and then to impose these notions as a standard by which to judge 16th century figures smacks of self-righteousness and cultural blindness.

Today and throughout church history there have been different and competing theories as to the role of Christians and the church in civil affairs, and it takes greater wisdom than either you or I possess to make a fair judgment about Calvin in this matter. It's just not so self-evident as you, apparently, want to make it.

 

[Bastoune]

Quite a few "disagreements" regarding Servetus and Calvin's role in executing him:

http://www.geocities.com/uuclarksville/Sermons/servetus.htm
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm

Can't say for sure who is really "orthodox." It's all relative.

 

[A. believer]

Quite a few "disagreements" regarding Servetus and Calvin's role in executing him:

http://www.geocities.com/uuclarksville/Sermons/servetus.htm
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm

Can't say for sure who is really "orthodox." It's all relative.

Yes, not only Scripture but even historical events are "all relative" without an "infallible interpreter" to tell us what's really true. The problem is, there are so many competing infallible interpreters of reality, (as well as competing interpretations of the infallible interpreters), that I need an infallible interpreter to tell me which infallible interpreter to listen to. And, of course, how do I know which person is telling me infallibly which infallible interpreter to listen to?

What to do?

Skepticism is wonderful polemic tool, isn't it--until it's turned back upon oneself.

 

[Bastoune]

Including those who defend St. Jean Cauvin de Geneve to the death...

Servetus was about as much a threat to orthodoxy as the Anabaptists were to Luther's movement.

The best source is always an objective one.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Castellio, one of Calvin's earlier lieutenants, decided to speak out against the murder of Servetus, stating:
When Servetus fought with reasons and writings, he should have been repulsed by reasons and writings. To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine but only to kill a man.

 

[A. believer]

The best source is always an objective one.

And that would be?

 

[Lotar]

You don't think the Anabaptists were a threat to the orthodoxy of the Church? Somebody needs to catch up on their history.

I find it suprising that a Catholic would critisize Calvin for supporting the execution of someone spreading the Arian heresy.

 

[PatrickM]

You don't think the Anabaptists were a threat to the orthodoxy of the Church? Somebody needs to catch up on their history.

I find it suprising that a Catholic would critisize Calvin for supporting the execution of someone spreading the Arian heresy.

I guess it depends on which history book you read. What, exactly was the threat the Anabaptists posed to the "orthodox church". And by the way, which orthodox church do you refer?

What I read about the Anabaptists, they merely wanted to be free from state-required infant baptism, forced upon them by Zwingli's city-church state. They wanted to be baptised based on a knowledgeable acceptance of Christ, not mere infant-baptising.

 

[PatrickM]

What credentials do you have that qualify you to declare his book a work of fiction? Does coming from a business background all of a sudden disqualify him from having any knowledge of history?

Well, his book is described as an historical novel by a web site which is promoting it! And what do you think a "novel" is, a documentary on historical facts?

The man did much more than just disagree with Calvin.

Things worthy of death? And, please do not start about my 21st century realative moralising. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. According to Reformist teaching, all things must be measured by "sola scriptura", not cultural realativsm, be it 16th century, or whatever. Even Augustine denounced killing, to the point of stating suicide is murder.

I guess attacking Calvin's character somehow justifies your own heretical beliefs? That because heretics have been persecuted in the past for their beliefs, and that Jesus was persecuted for His beliefs, that you must be somehow right, or at least not far off? Am I correct in this assessment of the reasoning behind this thread?

Actually, no. The reason behind this thread is to try to get people to see beyond any one person's teaching, "orthodoxy", and to see the what the Body of Christ is really about. Not about this person, and his/her teaching, or that person. "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos".

 

[Lotar]

Well, his book is described as an historical novel by a web site which is promoting it! And what do you think a "novel" is, a documentary on historical facts?

There is a difference between a historical novel and historical fiction.

Things worthy of death? And, please do not start about my 21st century realative moralising. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. According to Reformist teaching, all things must be measured by "sola scriptura", not cultural realativsm, be it 16th century, or whatever. Even Augustine denounced killing, to the point of stating suicide is murder.

When did Jesus say anything about capital punishment? The OT mandates it.

Augustine wasn't exactly welcoming to the heretics in Hippo. Considering that it was Arians who were responsible for the death of Augustine and the burning of his city, I don't think he would have minded much.

Actually, no. The reason behind this thread is to try to get people to see beyond any one person's teaching, "orthodoxy", and to see the what the Body of Christ is really about. Not about this person, and his/her teaching, or that person. "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos".

Which is you just restating what I said in a more favorable light.

I don't think that anyone here would say that there isn't a certian amount of Christian liberty, but that does not mean you can believe anything. Heresy is not to be taken lightly, and is spoken about at length by the Apostles, and warned against by Christ.

 

[Lotar]

I guess it depends on which history book you read. What, exactly was the threat the Anabaptists posed to the "orthodox church". And by the way, which orthodox church do you refer?

What I read about the Anabaptists, they merely wanted to be free from state-required infant baptism, forced upon them by Zwingli's city-church state. They wanted to be baptised based on a knowledgeable acceptance of Christ, not mere infant-baptising.

Then you have not read a full account of the reformation.

 

[PatrickM]

There is a difference between a historical novel and historical fiction.

Which is . . . ?

When did Jesus say anything about capital punishment? The OT mandates it.

I think His actions, i.e. dying on the cross, refusing to fight by saying His Kingdom is not of this world, else His disciples would fight, being silent before Pilate, etc.

Augustine wasn't exactly welcoming to the heretics in Hippo. Considering that it was Arians who were responsible for the death of Augustine and the burning of his city, I don't think he would have minded much.

Yet did he actually ascent to anyone actually being killed for heresy???

And as long as we are thinking for Augustine, I actually do think he would have minded. "to live is Christ, to die is gain."

I don't think that anyone here would say that there isn't a certian amount of Christian liberty, but that does not mean you can believe anything. Heresy is not to be taken lightly, and is spoken about at length by the Apostles, and warned against by Christ.

"Not to be taken lightly"?? This is far from killing people for it. And, yes, you can believe anything. God will judge whether you're right or wrong. "Vengence is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay", not us.

And what examples do we have regarding the Apostles and heresy? Did Paul agree to have people put to death? He refuted them, he even asked God to curse some, but death?? Please site example of the Apostles?

 

[Lotar]

Which is . . . ?

One is a work of fiction, one is historically accurate.

I think His actions, i.e. dying on the cross, refusing to fight by saying His Kingdom is not of this world, else His disciples would fight, being silent before Pilate, etc.

Grasping at straws her, aren't we?

Yet did he actually ascent to anyone actually being killed for heresy???

And as long as we are thinking for Augustine, I actually do think he would have minded. "to live is Christ, to die is gain."

Augustine was never in a position to be able to sentence a heretic to death.

Have you actually even read any of his works?

"Not to be taken lightly"?? This is far from killing people for it. And, yes, you can believe anything. God will judge whether you're right or wrong. "Vengence is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay", not us.

You can believe anything, you just can't be a Christian and believe anything.

Should we not punish those who commit murder, who steal, who rape, ect? It is not our place to take vengence, but it is the government's right and responsibility to enforce the Law.

Romans 13:1-3
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
[size=-1]Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
[size=-1]For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
[/size][/size]

And what examples do we have regarding the Apostles and heresy? Did Paul agree to have people put to death? He refuted them, he even asked God to curse some, but death?? Please site example of the Apostles?

The Apostles were never in a possition of governmental power. God Himself did strike down heretics.

 

[PatrickM]

One is a work of fiction, one is historically accurate.

Then why call one a "novel"? Why even make any differential?

Grasping at straws her, aren't we?

For what? For using Christ's example as one for us to follow???

Augustine was never in a position to be able to sentence a heretic to death.

And that, you believe, is the only reason he did not do such?

Have you actually even read any of his works?

LOL. Grasping at straws, yourself? Well, in his book I, chpt 27 is where he is against murder, even to the point of suicide to avoid sinning. If he was so much against murder for such a just individual cause, how much more must he have been against killing one who had not done any harm to anyone, other than have a different belief?

You can believe anything, you just can't be a Christian and believe anything.

Amen to that. But then, should we follow the logical conclusion, and kill anyone believing anything against our beliefs? Where do you draw the line?

Should we not punish those who commit murder, who steal, who rape, ect? It is not our place to take vengence, but it is the government's right and responsibility to enforce the Law.

This is exactly my point. Did Servetus commit such acts as murder, rape, etc? And what about punishment fitting crime? And one cannot use the 16th century as an excuse. Did God's voice cease until now? Does not His word apply to all generations? Are we going to be able to use this excuse when facing Him, Well, you know, it was the 16th century, and all, God, you know, even the Roman Catholics were doing it!

Romans 13:1-3
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
[size=-1]Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
[size=-1]For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
[/size][/size]

No argument here. But isn't there a higher law? Hitler was in power as a governing authority in Nazi Germany. Should Christians have gone along with his extermination of the Jews? No, I am not comparing anyone to Hitler, just using the logical conclusion of solely following man's government and neglecting God's Word.

"Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to yu more than to God, you decide" was Peter's response to the then governing authorities in Jerusalem, Acts 4:19.

The Apostles were never in a possition of governmental power. God Himself did strike down heretics.

Exactly. And was He less potent to do the same in the 16th century, than in Biblical times? Does He, now need our help to fulfil His will?
"Vengence is mine, says the Lord, *I* will repay. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God," Heb 10:30,31.