Was Calvin Wrong in Burning Servitus?

[Philothei]

The question is how much we should weight his philosophy/ theology knowing what he was capable of doing? All his theology IMHO is a bit questionable based on his action...

 

[Anoetos]

Fair question. What shall we do with Chrysostom who wrote such vicious things against the Jews?

 

[Philothei]

Fair question. What shall we do with Chrysostom who wrote such vicious things against the Jews?

That is true Anoetos...But then we go to St. Chrysostome... not Calvin that is another topic

JC did not talk against the Jews but "some jews" the ones who were against Christ St. Paul talks against the Jews... What do you suggest we do with Him?

But goint back to Calvin I understand that we do not know if he repented or not thus we cannot judge and it would be wrong to do that that as an after thought

 

[pointman7a]

we do not know if he repented or not thus we cannot judge and it would be wrong to do that that as an after thought

Curious, How do you define "judge"? Is it just exposing the evil? It is just declaring it a wrong? Is it all the above and then including a punishment phase?

 

[Philothei]

Judgment is a tricky thing as it back fires on your face I think For it does say"

Thou do not judge.... We judge ourselves and live accordingly... To judge another who does not...is falling short. As God will judge "the heart" and We are not God and we also cannot "see the heart" only the fruits.

When God says you can see the fruit of men ....does he say so you can judge them ? In what way we judge them then?

A Tree and Its Fruit
15“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16“You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17“So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you;

I think the fruit example is for whether to 'trust" the ones who bear good fruit or not... not to judge them... Cause if we are trying to judge a "bad" fruit indeed we are playing God
In this context the theme is not judgment rather caution who we trust, a false prophet.

 

[pointman7a]

Judgment is a tricky thing as it back fires on your face I think For it does say"

Thou do not judge.... We judge ourselves and live accordingly... To judge another who does not...is falling short. As God will judge "the heart" and We are not God and we also cannot "see the heart" only the fruits.

When God says you can see the fruit of men ....does he say so you can judge them ? In what way we judge them then?

I understand your view on not judging . But what is your DEFINITION of Judgment? Admonition? warning? treat with contempt? punish? Describing the crime to others? Telling them "you are a bad person" ?
Calvin judged which included an unloving and cruel punishment phase

 

[Hairy Tic]

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.

## It wasn't murder. Servetus was asking for it, and burning him was entirely the right thing to do.

If it had been some unforeseen novelty no Christian had heard of, that would make matters different: but executing heretics was by then:

• almost universally taken for granted by Catholic, Protestant, & Orthodox
• seen as well-deserved retibution for an crime of the worst kind
• not new among Christians by any means.

It is absurd that people can be so squeamish about it; it may seem cruel, but that was (by modern standards) a cruel time. At least in that case, Calvin is innocent of any wrong-doing. He can be nothing else, for it is senseless to apply to the men of the 16th century the ethics of a different age & culture. Such as our own.

Think of it as the spiritual counterpart of the deliberate spreading of AIDS or typhoid - that is what heresy is: a heretic is like "Typhoid Mary", or like someone with a STI who has non-stop one-night stands. That the infection is widespread, or admired, or invisible in its effects, makes it no less dangerous & corrupting.

 

[Philothei]

## It wasn't murder. Servetus was asking for it, and burning him was entirely the right thing to do.

If it had been some unforeseen novelty no Christian had heard of, that would make matters different: but executing heretics was by then:

• almost universally taken for granted by Catholic, Protestant, & Orthodox
• seen as well-deserved retibution for an crime of the worst kind
• not new among Christians by any means.

It is absurd that people can be so squeamish about it; it may seem cruel, but that was (by modern standards) a cruel time. At least in that case, Calvin is innocent of any wrong-doing. He can be nothing else, for it is senseless to apply to the men of the 16th century the ethics of a different age & culture. Such as our own.

Think of it as the spiritual counterpart of the deliberate spreading of AIDS or typhoid - that is what heresy is: a heretic is like "Typhoid Mary", or like someone with a STI who has non-stop one-night stands. That the infection is widespread, or admired, or invisible in its effects, makes it no less dangerous & corrupting.

Show me where Orthdoox did that kind of crime...and a crime is a crime no matter who does it... Nothing can justify a killing just because someone is a heretic.... nothing.

The anathemas bestowed to the heretics by the EO was about their teaching not directed at them. IOW just because Origen's works or Kazantzakis works were anathematized that does not mean that in the Kingdome of God have any validity as far as their salvation. God knowing the "heart" of men invalidates all man's perception on "who is saved and who is not" clause.

 

[Philothei]

I understand your view on not judging . But what is your DEFINITION of Judgment? Admonition? warning? treat with contempt? punish? Describing the crime to others? Telling them "you are a bad person" ?
Calvin judged which included an unloving and cruel punishment phase

None of the above judgment has to do with anathema and an anathema is a judgment a Church had to take as a measure many times against Heretics in the case of Calvin that is what the church would do. The only punishment would be to be anathematized (many have been ) that is he is cut off from the Church. His validity as a "prophet" "teacher" has been stripped. His 'disobedience" is that he would not listen to the admonision of the church thus the church takes action and indeed treat him like a "wolf in sheep's clothing". As far as his salvation the Church cannot and should not have any say as like I said before so and so may have dangerous and poisonous teachings but still God in His mercy and looking at his heart may save his soul. We cannot see the "heart" of men at least some spiritual giants can but many cannot. The idea of punishment is not part of the EO perpective in sin. We are not suffering out of punishment we suffer for we need correction. God does not inflict punishment but allows bad things to happen for our correction. So it would be totally against God's nature to
"inflict" let's say kill a heretic for that killing someone we strip his posibility for repentance and we take the blood of the killing on our hands. Did Christ say go and Jihad all the heretics? I think not. So the point to "punish" is totally moot when it comes to killing ... a heretic.

 

[Thekla]

Fair question. What shall we do with Chrysostom who wrote such vicious things against the Jews?

Have you read much Chrysostom ?
What do you think of his discussion on the Maccabees ?

 

[Anoetos]

That is true Anoetos...But then we go to St. Chrysostome... not Calvin that is another topic

JC did not talk against the Jews but "some jews" the ones who were against Christ St. Paul talks against the Jews... What do you suggest we do with Him?

But goint back to Calvin I understand that we do not know if he repented or not thus we cannot judge and it would be wrong to do that that as an after thought

I suggest we do nothing for two reasons:

a) he's dead, and

b) his contributions to the church far outweigh his faults and failings.

I think the same about Luther and Calvin.

What I definitely do NOT suggest is that we discount everything he says or assume that he is any more wicked than any of us because he spoke and/or behaved badly as a product of his time.

That said, as for your mitigation of Chrysostom's diatribes against the Jews, if we accept them, and I am more than willing to do so, shall we also not accept that Calvin's complicity in the death of Servetus was result of observing a legal principle in effect everywhere in Europe in his day?