Was Calvin Wrong in Burning Servitus?

[JoeRich75]

I am just wondering what you think?

 

[lesliedellow]

I am just wondering what you think?

I imagine you would be hard pushed to find anybody today who thinks heresy should be a capital offence - at least in the western world.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Burning someone (anyone) at the stake is pretty unethical....just a tad.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[mmmcounts]

I am just wondering what you think?

Check out this conference panel discussion. It eventually goes beyond the Servetus affair, but it is the first thing they talk about in some detail. The main guys in this discussion know what they're doing, and they know their way around the first-class biographies on Calvin and the best historians.

Theater of God Conference -- Panel Discussion

 

[christopherdombrowski]

Of course he was. Severtus was without a doubt in error. But I don't believe in executing people for holding to heresy.

 

[HiredGoon]

The question is fundamentally flawed in that Calvin didn't burn anyone, and didn't have the authority to burn anyone. The city of Geneva (which despite popular misconception was not ruled by Calvin) executed Servetus, as any governing authority in Europe at the time would have.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

The question is fundamentally flawed in that Calvin didn't burn anyone, and didn't have the authority to burn anyone. The city of Geneva (which despite popular misconception was not ruled by Calvin) executed Servetus, as any governing authority in Europe at the time would have.

Well, actually, most sources I have seen have indicated that the judgment was carried out with the cooperation of Calvin. And, as a matter of fact, I remember there being a quote from him saying that if he saw Severtus that he would not tolerate for him to leave alive.

 

[Kaitlin08]

Absolutely wrong.

 

[VolRaider]

Geneva was built on Calvinist principles, so it would be hard to say that Calvin did not approve of this execution.
And yes, burning people is sick, sick, sick. Makes my skin crawl to read about it and imagine so-called Christians would ever tolerate this barbarity.

 

[Hairy Tic]

I am just wondering what you think?

##This combines several questions:

• Is it wrong to execute people ?
• Is it wrong to execute for heresy ?
• Is heresy to be regarded as a crime ?
• Is it proper for Christians to use the DP ?
• Is it proper for Christians to use DP for the crime of heresy ?
• Was it wrong for Protestants of the 1550s to use the DP for heresy ?
• Was it wrong for Calvin to allow or to defend it ?
• Was the position of Servetus heretical ?
• Should he have been punished for it with death ?
• Should he have been burned alive ?
• Was it wrong for Genevan Protestants to put him to death for his position ?

There are many issues here. In principle, I see no reason why heresy should not be a capital crime. If one believes in a revelation of truth by God, to deny what one has explicitly accepted as truth revealed by God, and to do so stubbornly, can hardly be anything but a sin. To communicate one's misbelief to others, is to do them a great wrong; & there is no right to do wrong, only liberty to do it. There is no right to publish a heresy, and to do so is both a sin - which if not repented will lead to the damnation of the heretic - and a crime; it may therefore be punished as a crime. And the penalty in most Christian states was burning alive (Venice was an exception, in view of its watery location).

And Calvin had no difficulty in defending the suppression of heretics, as there was ample OT warrant for such measures.

Whether it was morally defensible for Protestants to inflict it, is another matter. One could argue either that

• executing heretics is a nasty Catholic vice that Protestants should get rid of ASAP

or

• a reformed Church will, because it is zealous for the purity of the Gospel, spare no efforts in suppressing the messengers of Satan whom the devil has sent to corrupt the Gospel

For us, nowadays, the fault is on the side of the heretic-burners - but that is not how Calvin (for example) saw matters. That does not make him a monster. He could be criticised for not being better than his contemporaries; but the idea that he cannot have been a Christian because of these activities, an idea that is found on many web-sites, is parochial silliness. It does not follow that because a man is severe in certain matters, that he does wrong to be severe, nor that he is severe in all matters.

The notion of heresy presupposes that of orthodoxy; & it is not clear whether or not being Protestant allows of such a thing as orthodoxy; if it does not, & if it did not in 1550s Geneva, then to execute anyone for heresy is a great iniquity. I have difficulty seeing how schismatics & heretics - which is how Genevan Protestants were seen in 1553, from a Catholic POV - can have had a moral right to burn an heretical "third party", which Servetus was, from the POV alike of Catholics and of his executioners. And that is a further layer of difficulty in this question. OTOH, Protestants often regarded Catholics as the heretics, and themselves as the "right believers"; so the difficulty should not be seen one-sidedly, nor be exaggerated.

IMO, Castellio is the character who comes out best from all this - but that is BTW. What is unfair IMO, is that Calvin is continually reproached for the Servetus business - there is more to Calvin than that. It is not fair to apply the standards of one age to those living in a different one.

 

[Lemmiwinks]

If Calvin is excused for simply being a product of his times and culture, then we should excuse al Qaeda on that same basis.

 

[Hairy Tic]

If Calvin is excused for simply being a product of his times and culture, then we should excuse al Qaeda on that same basis.

## Excuse =///= understanding.

 

[pointman7a]

True, burning at the stake was practiced as a form of execution at this time. Calvin did not need to burn a man alive for not agreeing with him. Hilter killed his own people for not agreeing with him. Murder is murder. The punishment does not fit the crime. Simple, Calvin was a bad man.

 

[Anoetos]

Note: I say this as a confirmed Calvinist: yes, John Calvin was wrong for his part in the burning of Servetus, but that doesn't make him wrong about everything or even anything else.

 

[Anoetos]

There's an important distinction to be made between morality as a universal standard and our time bound perceptions of it. It's always wrong to kill men for holding wrong ideas, but doing so is easier to understand of someone living in in the sixteenth century than it would be of someone living today.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Also, from what I understand, it's not as though Calvin himself sentenced Servitus to die. That was done by the leaders of Geneva; Calvin however agreed with the sentence, and given that he was the spiritual leader of Geneva tends to get credited with the act. So, while Calvin is hardly blameless in the act, I'm not entirely sure the full weight of the act should fall on one man's shoulders.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pointman7a]

Note: I say this as a confirmed Calvinist: yes, John Calvin was wrong for his part in the burning of Servetus, but that doesn't make him wrong about everything or even anything else.

Very true, but still hard to stomach. For example, Trying to enjoy a beautifully prepared meal from a great chef who was discovered as being a convicted child murderer. Or like, Bobby Flay of the Food Channel killing Alton Brown for over cooking the steak then daring you to eat it.

 

[Anoetos]

It might be helpful to remember that Servetus would have met the same end in any country in Europe at the time. This doesn't make it right, but it certainly sets the context.

 

[Philothei]

subscribing

 

[Philothei]

If Calvin is excused for simply being a product of his times and culture, then we should excuse al Qaeda on that same basis.

Ah.... nope that would not be wise