John Calvin a Murderer?

Very good explanation by Ransom!
It was Farel who invited Calvin so strongly that he should stay in Geneve, when Calvin try to go to Strasbourg. Farel was a ardent evangelist from Dauphiny and his 3 brothers became very faithful disciples of Christ. Farel preached Gospel in Neuchatel, Provance, Dauphiny.
It was quite notable that he tried to recover the Lord's Supper without clergy system and he did it with 8 brethren. In a certain sense Calvin might be able to excuse for his behavior, but he was the one who lead the city at least for 4 years. Servetus was excommunicated from Paris but he could have been deported from Geneve, instead of being executed since Calvin declared the citizens must confess the faith or leave the city. It was Calvin who ordered the arrest of Servetus when he noticed the old man, the Unitarian and Doctor Servetus while he was preaching. I agree that those incidents should be viewed from the angle of the time of reformers, but even if we take into account those factors, Calvin can hardly be exonerated from the murder charge in front of God. What if Calvin had taken the life of Farel or many Heugnot who preferred being killed to killing others. I feel Calvin will not be exalted by God so much as he is praised by Presbyterian. In any case Christians should not kill the people because of their religion and we should not force the people believe anything, because even God doesn't force the people do so. How many would have been killed if Calvin ruled Geneve more than 4 years, like 20 years since the Council under him sentenced the death for 58 people including the innocent woman who denied the infant baptism, or how many would have been killed if he ruled a country much bigger than Geneve, like France?, even though I do understand the whole situation at that time was quite different from ours.

 

Eliyahu said:

but he was the one who lead the city at least for 4 years.

Wrong. Calvin never led the city. They had a council of city elders that was elected yearly. Calvin, as an habitant (resident alien) was not eligible to stand on the council, or even to vote.

The city council was sympathetic to Calvin from 1555 to 1564 when he died; however, this was well after the Servetus business.

Servetus was excommunicated from Paris

No, he was imprisoned in Paris (I could be mistaken about the city) and condemned to die, but he escaped from jail. When he fled to Geneva, he was not an excommunicate, but a fugitive.

but he could have been deported from Geneve,

At which point he would have been arrested again and inevitably executed by someone else. Why single out John Calvin for special hatred?

It was Calvin who ordered the arrest of Servetus

Yes, he did. It was his civic duty to do so. Servetus was a convicted, escaped criminal who revealed himself publicly in a city that respected the rule of law.

Calvin can hardly be exonerated from the murder charge in front of God.

Calvin did not murder Servetus, and he did not have the authority to condemn him to death or to lessen his sentence. In fact Servetus died in the way he did precisely because the rulers of Geneva wanted to flaunt their authority in his face.

What if Calvin had taken the life of Farel or many Heugnot who preferred being killed to killing others.

What heresies did Farel or the Huguenots teach that would warrant trial and execution? Why would Calvin even want to do such a thing? He was supporting the Huguenots by sending them church-planting missionaries.

In any case Christians should not kill the people because of their religion and we should not force the people believe anything, because even God doesn't force the people do so.

So Calvin's crime is failing to be a time traveller and being exposed to ideas of religious freedom that were yet 200 years in the future. Certainly it is illegitimate to call him a "murderer," since he did not make the law in Geneva, and in any case the use of the death penalty against a convicted criminal is not, by definition, murder.

 

I don't care how much you shake and bake Calvin in an attempt to absolve him. Here are his own words -

In a 1561 letter from Calvin to the marquis de Poet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, he says intolerantly:
"Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains: but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those zealous scoundrels who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard." (309)."

(Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, Revised Edition,Vance Publications, Pensacola, FL, 1999, pp. 92, 94, 95.)

All this talk about judging him according to his time is absolute rubbish. We, as Christians, are judged by the standard of Christ alone, never other men.

 

My expression was based on EH Broadbent Pilgrim Church. I personally do not know how much Calvin was involved in the death penalties on the people charged with religious matters. But I have not heard that Calvin tried to save the people. King of Navarre became Henri IV, a political Heugnot, who declared Nantes Decree (Edict of Nantes) in 1598. Queen of Navarre, Margaret attended the Lord Supper without clergy's ritual and showed the faith that the queen and laymen are equal in the presence of Lord. In such circumstances, Calvin's action might be different from that toward other people. I cannot describe exactly how Servetus came out of Paris without considering the judicial system at that time, but he expected a certain protection in Geneve but was killed because he personally condemned Calvin as a hypocrite seeing that a woman and her father were burnt just because they refused infant baptism. As far as I know, Servetus was killed by having his tongue pierced. I can imagine the cruelty. Despite any excuse, I have no doubt that Calvin was so important that he could influence any elders in the city.
Everyone can have excuses on this world, but at the judgment seat, he or she will be speechless, similar to Mt. 22:12

 

JohnB said:

(Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, Revised Edition,Vance Publications, Pensacola, FL, 1999, pp. 92, 94, 95.)

I would not judge Laurence Vance to be a trustworthy historian. Can you verify this quotation from a primary source, or at least a historian with reputable credentials?

All this talk about judging him according to his time is absolute rubbish. We, as Christians, are judged by the standard of Christ alone, never other men.

Any Christian scholar or teacher in 1553, Calvin included, would have said the same thing.

 

Eliyahu said:

As far as I know, Servetus was killed by having his tongue pierced.

That only goes to show that you don't know very far at all. Servetus was burned at the stake. I would expect someone who had a credible critique of Calvin's tenure in Geneva to get at least that basic fact right.

 

He had his tongue pierced first and then burnt at a stake because he criticized Calvin. Servetus was the Doctor who discovered the blood circulation for the first time in the world and opposed to infant baptism in the Doctrine of Calvin. He prayed " Eternal Son of God Jesus, have mercy on me" at the time he was burnt.

 

Ransom said:

"I would not judge Laurence Vance to be a trustworthy historian. Can you verify this quotation from a primary source, or at least a historian with reputable credentials?"

Sorry, I do not own any 16th century letters of Calvin nor do I have access to them.

Do you have any basis for rejecting Vance's citation other than the fact that you don't like him? Or he doesn't like Calvin? On what basis do you call him a liar?

I am also curious as to why you seek to defend sin and call evil good. Why not admit that Calvin acted in a totally un-Christlike manner? I am not picking on Calvin here. My condemnation extends to any and all "scholars and teachers" of any denomination who killed or tortured in the name of Jesus.

 

JohnB said:

Do you have any basis for rejecting Vance's citation other than the fact that you don't like him?

One, his book is self-published, which means it has not gone through the rigorous editorial review it would have had it gone through a reputable scholarly publisher.

Two, he is associated with Peter Ruckman's Pensacola Bible Institute, which is not exactly a bastion of scholarly integrity.

Why do you suppose I don't like him? I never met him, so I don't know whether I like him or not.

Or he doesn't like Calvin? On what basis do you call him a liar?

I asked for independent verification of his claims. I didn't say he was a liar. Don't put words in my mouth.

I am also curious as to why you seek to defend sin and call evil good. Why not admit that Calvin acted in a totally un-Christlike manner?

Because I have no evidence that "Calvin acted in a totally un-Christlike manner." In fact, by all accounts, at least the ones that don't have an axe to grind, his personal character and conduct were above reproach (though his temper was known to be short).

 

Eliyahu said:

He had his tongue pierced first and then burnt at a stake because he criticized Calvin.

Wrong again.

It was the practice of the day to cut out the tongues of heretics to prevent them from uttering their heresies as they died. The Geneva council did not do this to Servetus.

The only thing is, they didn't do it because Calvin asked them not to. In this one instance, they acceded to his wishes. Though it doesn't prove your point.

 

Ransom said:
"I would not judge Laurence Vance to be a trustworthy historian."

Where I come from, that sounds like a polite way of calling him a liar.

Aside from guilt by association, do you have a foundation for saying he is not trustworthy?

I am no special fan of Vance's. But if, when I studied history in graduate school, I made such a comment about a source, my professors would want to know what evidence I had.

Vance should be assumed trustworthy until proven otherwise. Do you have actual evidence of untrustworthy scholarship?

 

Vance should be assumed trustworthy until proven otherwise.

Says who?

Do you have actual evidence of untrustworthy scholarship?

By your own logic, you should just take my word for it until you have evidence of Vance's trustworthy scholarship.

BTW, may I assume from your dithering that the answer to my question is no, you don't have independent verification of his claims?

 

Dithering? As I clearly stated, I do not have access to the primary source material. And I do not have another citation immediately available.

I guess it boils down to you doubting his veracity with no scholarly reason. I see no point in chasing this rabbit around the tree unless you can cite examples of lies, poor or sloppy scholarship that would cause me to doubt Vance's work.

So, unless proven otherwise, I will assume the citation is valid. And I will also assume that you reject it, not on an acadamic basis, but for reasons of personal prejudice.

 

Geneve had the religious court consisting of 12 elders and 5 pastors. Calvin is known as the pastor selected from the city council. Calvin had the authority to interpret the bible and in reality he had the soverreign authority to decide the death and life of the people. They executed 58 during the 4 years reign of Calvin and imprisoned 76 in the city with 13,000 population. Most of them were not burnt or killed without being tortured.Jacques Gruet was tortured and killed just because he condemned Calvin as a hypocrite. Calvin was never holy man. If G Bush behave like Calvin, he would kill 1.4 million and imprison 2 million in US during 4 years, just because such people opposed to trinity, or infant baptism, or predestination.
He imprisoned a man because he laughed while he was preaching at the church.
I might be confused between Servetus and Jacques Gruet about piercing the tongue, but am sure Calvin used to torture the people before burning them. Servetus asked the forgiveness from Calvin in the last moment but was not allowed because
in order to be saved from the stake he only had to state "Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God." Instead, his last words were: "Jesus Christ, Son of the eternal God." He was convinced of the correctness of his reading of the scripture, which he revered, and died defending not his life but his doctrines.

 

JohnB:

Dithering? As I clearly stated, I do not have access to the primary source material. And I do not have another citation immediately available.

OK, well, so much for Vance.

I guess it boils down to you doubting his veracity with no scholarly reason.

I gave you my reasons: lack of peer review for his work, and association with (and education at) an institution of questionable repute.

I see no point in chasing this rabbit around the tree unless you can cite examples of lies, poor or sloppy scholarship that would cause me to doubt Vance's work.

In any case, I have no intention of following this particular rabbit trail of yours any further.

And I will also assume that you reject it, not on an acadamic basis, but for reasons of personal prejudice.

Good for you.

 

Eliyahu said:

Geneve had the religious court consisting of 12 elders and 5 pastors. Calvin is known as the pastor selected from the city council.

Wrong again Eliyahu.

Once again, for the literacy impaired:

Calvin could not be "selected from the city council." He was not a member of the city council. He was not a native Genevan, therefore he was not eligible to be a member of the city council.

Can I write this any more simply for you?

Calvin had the authority to interpret the bible and in reality he had the soverreign authority to decide the death and life of the people.

Wrong again Eliyahu.

Calvin used to torture the people before burning them.

Wrong again Eliyahu. Calvin was not a member of the city council and did not have the authority to torture or execute anyone. (Figured that out yet?)

In any case, you only tell half the story. Gruet was a member of the "Libertines," a group of Genevan families that held a grudge against Calvin because of some of his moral reforms - not that he was demanding stricter laws, but he was demanding that the ones already on the books be enforced.

Gruet was suspected of having posted a pamphlet on the pulpit of the church that not only insulted the pastors of the city, but threatened them with death. When the council investigated further, it came to light that Gruet was not only an atheist (and therefore a heretic), but he was secretly plotting to betray the city of Geneva to the Duke of Savoy, who had long wished to possess it.

In other words, Gruet was beheaded for treason, not for calling Calvin a hypocrite. That charge was all but forgotten when the investigation led to a far more serious discovery.

Servetus asked the forgiveness from Calvin in the last moment but was not allowed because
in order to be saved from the stake he only had to state "Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God." Instead, his last words were: "Jesus Christ, Son of the eternal God."

Assuming you're right (and your track record doesn't really support the assumption), Servetus doesn't sound very repentant to me. Good for Calvin!

[ November 30, 2005, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Unfortunately the books that I quoted were re-quoted from Japanese and therefore it is difficult to quote here, but if you check with yahoo "John Calvin church history or religious history, torture" you can find hundreds of books or articles, including Stefan Zweig, Brian Levack and so on. You will be very busy in defending him. Someone call Calvin as murder-mania.

Let me show you one of the postings:

Christianity by Force



I. We live in a country where the choice of one’s religion is freely made.

A. It is not that way in all countries, nor has it always been like this

II. The Catholic church had a long history of compelling membership

A. In his book, WHAT LOVE IS THIS, Dave Hunt writes and quotes: "Augustine ... saw the church as a mixture of believers and unbelievers, in which purity and evil should be allowed to exist side by side for the sake of unity. He used the power of the state to compel church attendance (as Calvin did 1,200 years later): 'Whoever was not found within the Church was not asked the reason, but was to be corrected and converted....' (The Rise of Christianity, by W. -H. C. Frend, p. - 671.)"

B. "Though he preferred persuasion if possible, Augustine supported the death penalty for those who were re-baptized as believers after conversion to Christ and for, other alleged heretics."

C. In E. . Broadbent's book, The Pilgrim Church, p. 49, he writes, "Why therefore should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return? ... The Lord Himself said, 'Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in...."'

III. It wasn’t limited to Catholicism. 1,200 years later, John Calvin, a student of Augustine’s writings, obtained a high place in the government of Geneva, Switzerland, and like Augustine before, used his council position to impose his Institutes of Region upon the citizens.

A. A religion group called the Donatists, so called after Donatus, a 4th century Catholic bishop of Carthage in North Africa in the year 311, and holding that sanctity is essential for the administration of sacraments and church membership." Webster's Dictionary.

B. It was declared: "...the Donatists were heretics ...who could be subjected to imperial legislation [and force] in exactly the same way as other criminals and misbelievers, including poisoners and pagans.' (Frend, op. cit., p. 671.) "

C. Calvin's power and influence over state authorities was so great, they were compelled to act on all his orders without questions.

D. "Calvin used the civil arm to impose his peculiar doctrines upon the citizens of Geneva and to enforce them. Zweig, who: Better consult Master Calvin about this.'" (The Other Side of John Calvin, by Stefan Zweig, p. 217.)

E. Hunt writes (p 18): "By Calvin's personal orders Michael Servetus, whom John Calvin had declared to be a heretic, was murdered by beheading. The Catholics and Protestants alike were for Servetus being burned at the stake. Some critics argued that burning Servetus would only encourage the Roman Catholics of France to do the same to the Huguenots “

1. Huguenot were French Protestants, who were of the French Reformation communion.

2. 70,000 Huguenots were slaughtered in one night in 1572.

F. Historian, Philip Schaff wrote:"It was a glaring inconsistency; that those who had just shaken off the yoke of popery as an intolerable burden, should subject their conscience and intellect to a human creed; in other words, substitute for the old Roman popery modern Protestant popery [John Calvin]" (History of the Christian Church, 8:357.)

G. Of Calvin’s efforts in Geneva, Will Durant. op. cit., p. 474 writes: "To regulate lay conduct a system of domiciliary visits was established ... and questioned the occupants on all phases of their lives... .The allowable color and quantity of clothing ... and number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral .height ...

H. "Censorship of the press was taken over from Catholic and secular precedents and enlarged books ... of immoral tendency were banned... .To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. A first violation of these ordinances was punished with a reprimand, further violation with fines, persistent violation by imprisonment or banishment. Fornication was to by punished with exile or drowning; adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death ... a child was beheaded for striking its parents. In the years 1558-59 there were 414 prosecutions for moral offenses; between 1542 and 1564 there were seventy-six banishments and fifty-eight executions; the total population Geneva was then about 20,000."

IV. Even in our country, it continues

A. "There are many Christian activists of looser attachment to Calvin hope in their own way, through protest marches and the organizing of large enough voting blocks, to force an ungodly American citizenry into godly living." (What Love is This? p. 83)

V. True Christianity is not like this

B. Revelation 22:17 - The key words are: "whosoever will," those who come to Christ must do so of a willing mind.

C. Psalm 110:3 - God’s religion is voluntary

 

Unfortunately the books that I quoted were re-quoted from Japanese and therefore it is difficult to quote here, but if you check with yahoo "John Calvin church history or religious history, torture" you can find hundreds of books or articles, including Stefan Zweig, Brian Levack and so on. You will be very busy in defending him. Someone call Calvin as murder-mania.

We all know that the Internet is a treasure-trove of well-researched, reliable information, and it is not at all populated with armchair historians with a theological axe to grind against John Calvin. Phrases like "murder-mania" just prove how careful they are to present their information carefully, fairly, and as objectively as possible.

FYI, my main resources on the life and times of John Calvin are reputable Church historians: Alister McGrath's A Life of John Calvin, Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, and J. A. Wylie's The History of Protestantism. In my estimation, none of the three have any particular reason either to beatify or vilify Calvin, and so they are largely balanced. Given the choice between McGrath's excellent biography and ten Internets, you will find me at the bookstore.

Oh, and speaking of reputable historians (barf):

E. [Dave] Hunt writes (p 18): "By Calvin's personal orders Michael Servetus, whom John Calvin had declared to be a heretic, was murdered by beheading.

Dave Hunt is an ignoramus; or, at least, apparently he is the last strident anti-Calvinist who doesn't realize Servetus was burned.

[ December 01, 2005, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Yes, when I brought the article, I noticed the mistake. but it stated "The Catholics and Protestants alike were for Servetus being burned at the stake" too. It is a minor matter. I do not know those authors but when I check thru the index of the books, they just follow the typical pattern of the church history following the church fathers and Catholic histories.( I don't accept the concept of church fathers because we have only one Father and church has the only Husband) They don't mention or deal with as less important, the true believers of God like Cathars, Waldense, Albiegene, Paulician, Priscillian, Moravian Brethren, Wieder Taufers(Anabaptists), etc. Such history usually condemn the true believers as a cult or heresies. Sometimes they condemn Nestorian simply as a heresy insisting on the two persons in Jesus, but I know they did a tremendous ministry in the East, even in China and they preached the gospel there.
The view of the true believers are different because they believe the behaviors of the Christians are to be proven as more important than the books or sermon. I have not checked the history of protestantism by Wylie but it seems that it reports John Konx at length but doesn't report on his adultery. He may excuse that it is a minor matter as a human being. However, it is very important for us to discern whether he is a true Christian or not. If he committed adultery with a married woman and took away her with her daughter from her husband and went to Geneve, living with her and her daughter both for sex partners, it must be bizarre. In addition to his marriage twice, another woman named Mrs. Locke also deserted her husband and then took her daughter and maid and went to Knox in Geneve. Apart from those women there were many women who had sex with him. My information is from someone who quoted from Sex in History by G.R. Tayor. The reason why I don't have any direct information is because I don't want to waste time for such books or such people. If John Knox followed the teachings of NT faithfully but still was attacked by others, I would go into deeep. But neither Calvin nor Knox seem to have done so and don't deserve any further study from us.
If Calvin was really the right person who deserve our respect, then he would have persuaded the council of Geneve, not to do so. If the resident didn't listen to him, he should have departed from there. Apparently there are plenty of articles and comments that he ordered the execution of many people in Geneve. If Calvin was a man of mercy, he could have saved Servetus from being burnt. He was not a humble man. When the baptists were persecuted, Calvin was not on the victims' side.

Both may be called 2 pillars of Presbyterian, the one is murder-mania, the other sex-mania.
I don't have much accurate information because I don't want to waste much time for such people. They are not the great people for the true believers to advocate.

[ December 01, 2005, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

John Calvin was a killer and a Hairy-tick!