John Calvin a Murderer?

[Eliyahu]

Had Calvin ever condemned the brutal execution of 58 people or the imprisonment of 76 people?
Was he just a spectator at that time?

If he had been really sympathetic to those victims, he would have been expelled from there.
One of my acquaintances repent very often whenever he get drunk. After he drank alcohol,he repent deeply about his behavior against his parents and so on. But he would not accept the Lord and objects to the truth. If Calvin really repented about his behavior, no one here would necessarily defend him.

How many billions should be killed if we apply the same rule to this world today, as Geneve did at his time?
What did Jesus do to the woman caught in adultery? What did He do to the biggest cult at that time, Pharisees and Sadducees? Has He killed any? The Holy Spirit in me who watched and listened to the prayer of Servetus tells me not to stand in defense of Calvin. If Servetus committed any civil offense, yes he deserve the penalty for it. Did he kill any people? Just because he disagreed to the Trinity, did he deserve such death? If anyone justify the hatred-filled murder of Calvin ( or just a spectator enjoying watching the execution), he or she is confessing that he himself or she herself has hatred-filled murderous desire.
I disagree with Jehova's Witness people even though they deny Trinity, but would not kill them even though I am empowered to do any type of execution, nor would sit at the scene as a spectator. I would have left a clear message of my objection to the brutal murder.
What happened in Geneve was exactly the same as committed by Roman Catholic under Popes and some people call Calvin as Pope of Geneve.

Do we still need more research before we discern Calvin? I would not spend much time studying Mahomed or Budha before discerning them. I would not set up any research center in my mind for each heresy. My understanding about those religion is enough for me to discern properly and depart from them. We have to adore and remember only One who loved us so much that he died for us and I know no one else died for me.
I am glad that I didn't live in Geneve at the time of Calvin, because my personality would have made me disobey Calvin and would have condemned him as a hatred-filled hypocrite, openly, and would have died by the brutal exection.

 

[Ransom]

Do we still need more research before we discern Calvin? I would not spend much time studying Mahomed or Budha before discerning them.

Yeah, well, you would probably be consistently mistaken about them, too. Your track record speaks for itself on this thread.

 

[Monergist]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
I would not spend much time studying Mahomed or Budha before discerning them. I would not set up any research center in my mind for each heresy.

I would suggest studying them enough to spell them correctly.

 

[Eliyahu]

I lived in Saudi Arabia only for 2 years which might not be enough to learn the exact spelling in Arabic and in English, but just noticed so many people state Mohammad, Muhammad, Mahommed, even Mahomet. I was raised in a Buddhist family where people people state Buddha as Budda, Budah, Budha. If any one wants check the spelling errors or any divergeance on this site every day, he will be very busy every day.

Here are the points:
The reason why Dave Hunt mentioned about beheading might be understood from the following site:

http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

where you can find that even 34 women were executed.

Servetus could have been granted the great grace from Calvin, to be beheaded, only if he confessed Jesus, eternal son of God, instead, Jesus the Son of Eternal God.

There are just reasons to doubt about Calvin's salvation because he connect the salvation with infant baptism and he had non experience to testify his own salvation other than infant baptism.


I strongly oppose to the denial of deity of Jesus Christ, but to the killing of the people just because their belief and conscience as well.
I am glad that I am not a dog sucking the blood on the floor of the Human Slaughter House masterminded and operated by John Calvin.

[ December 04, 2005, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

[bapmom]

Originally posted by andross:
When reading reviews for Foxe's book of Martyrs, I stumbled upon a claim that John Calvin martyred Michael Servetus.

I strongly disagree with 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism ,but this was startling. Imagine Presbyterians and others believing and/or supporting the created doctrine of a murderer.

Can anyone someone proof or disproof this claim?
As it stands, my research makes Calvin look much like Pontius pilate.

Don't know for sure that this hasn't already been pointed out, but we tout the doctrines written down by murderers every time we read the Bible. They were God's doctrines of course, but He used many different types of men.

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible, which were the only Scripture that many people had in the beginning.
He murdered.

David wrote much of Psalms.
He murdered.

Paul wrote over half the New Testament.
He in the very least consented to the stoning of the first Christian martyr, Stephen.
He also then went on to be responsible for the arrest and imprisonment of many other Christians, some of whom were most likely executed.

That being said, Im not a Calvinist, either.

 

[Ransom]

Eliyahu said:

The reason why Dave Hunt mentioned about beheading might be understood from the following site:

Why are you making excuses for this pathetic excuse for a theologian? The reason Dave Hunt claims Servetus was beheaded is because Dave Hunt is incapable of either researching Calvin and Calvinism fairly, or too biased against it to treat it honestly.

Dave Hunt's errors, backpedalling, misrepresentations, and outright lies have been documented by dozens of people. His book What Love is This? is a case study in academic dishonesty.

 

[Eliyahu]

In my quotation, you can notice the followings:

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

In the above sentences, you can notice that Hunt himself is mentioning "the burning" itself. The only mistake might be because it was re-quoted, not the his own sentence, because in the previous sentence of the original article by Hunt may be saying, Calvin intended to behead him as Servetus begged him. The only problem was that Hunt made a certain mistake in stating the sequences. In the next sentences he clearly mentions burning twice "Servetus being burned at the stake. Some critics argued that burning Servetus" So, it is hard to say that Hunt didn't know Servetus was burnt instead of being beheaded.

Therefore finding fault with some minor error in the statement doesn't justify the whole argument against it. You can find many other critics against Calvin. Main reason for the behavior of Calvin which I think is that:
1) he has very much obscure testimony on his own salvation. He is confused that one can be saved by infant baptism, which was often the reason why he burnt the women who refused Infant Baptism. I never heard about his own testimony on salvation while John Wesley, Martin Luther, Pascal, Harry Ironside, all have very clear testimony on the salvation.
2) His doctrine contains a lot of heresies such as : Baptism by sprinkling, Salvation may be lost without baptism, Infant Baptism, Predestination, Clergy sytem. Lengthy explanation on Holy Catholic Church. There is not a word for catholic in the Bible. " Universal" eventually lead to worldly, secular church which might be good for "ecumenical" while Ecclesia is connected with Consecrated,chosen out, heavenly assembly.
Clergy system is groundless in the Bible. Pastor should have been translated as Shepherd from Poimen, and Eph 4:10-11 should be understood as talking about the "gifts" Otherwise Calvin should have explained how Pastors should be elected, what are the qualification for such office. He also says all the secraments should be presided by Pastor, which is not found in Bible. He should have explained about "Let 2 or 3 prophets speak, and let others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent" (1COR 14:28-29) This is totally different from clergy system while Plymouth Brethren still perform the service in this way.He also mentions each pastor should have his own church, while Bible states episkope or elders as plural for each church.
Predestination may be partly right, but there are many verses which explains otherwise in the bible, i.e. Jonah 3:12

2) If the victims were killed because of their civil offenses, one can rightfully condone the brutal execution of such violators. But their offenses were just the unbelief of certain doctrines or because of conscience, then it is a big problem.

3) Bapmom, I appreciate your articles on the other threads which were very much agreeable to me. But in this case you have to identify between OT times and NT times. Of course in case of Calvin, he was in a unique situation because he had the responsiblity for the worldly politics too, in addition to the church matters. In such case one can often think that the state is different from individual even today as the state has the power and responsibility to rule and govern the people as a shadow of God's judgment until Lord comes.
However, even in this case we should know there is a style and teachings for such governing.
Disciples asked " Lord wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? 55 But he turned and rebuked them and said "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of" LK9:54-55

If anyone is heretic,
Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

This is enough.

What Calvin did was exactly the same as the Popes of Roman Catholics, and his supporters are busy to deny that he played the most important role in the execution, which is common to RCC in denying Inquisition and Neo-Nazis in denying Holocaust.
If I am empowered with such worldly politics, I would fully persue the guidance of Holy Spirit, which may be extremely difficult but possible if Holy Spirit would have exalted me to sit down on such a position as Jesus showed the mercy to the woman caught in adultery. That was not found in Calvin.

 

[Travelsong]

Calvin is nothing. Christians have been committing atrocities and killing in the name of Jesus from the very beginning.

[inappropriate link deleted]

[ December 05, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

[Eliyahu]

Travelsong, Sorry to disagree with you. The most of them commiting atrocities were nominal churchmen, not the true Christians. we have to speparate between actually born-again Christian and churchmen and churchwomen full of theory and hypocricy or rituals. In addition, most of atrocities quoted were connected with Catholic such as the Holocaust by devout Roman Catholic, Adolf Hitler and his henchmen, and Jews and Christians were the victims of Crusade and Inquisition. Therefore it is a false accusation.
In such case the true Christians were the victims

 

[Rippon]

andross said:

When reading reviews for Foxe's book of Martyrs, I stumbled upon a claim that John Calvin martyred Michael Servetus.

Not true. Calvin had very little political power. He spent the majority of his career as the pastor of Geneva fighting city hall because they were trying to dictate to him how he ought to run the church.

Calvin, on the other hand, believed in the separation of church and state - to a certain extent, anyway - the duty of the state was to protect the church and submit to the Word of God as taught by the church, but not to exercise temporal power over the church. Conversely, while the civil government was subject to the laws of God, the church did not wield temporal power over the state. They each had their respective spheres of influence.

For the first two years that Calvin was in Geneva, he and the city council butted heads so often that finally they fired him and banished him. They had to beg him to come back because the moral situation in the city was so much worse with him gone. Initially, he refused but finally was persuaded to return by his friend Guillaume Farel.

Even after that, the relationship between Calvin and the city of Geneva was hardly cordial. It wasn't until 1555 that the politics of the city were sympathetic toward him. Keep in mind also that Calvin was a Frenchman, a resident alien living in Geneva only with the permission of the council. He had no right to vote, let alone any real political power, and the council wasn't going to let some foreigner get the better of them. Therefore, Calvin's political influence extended only so far as his ability to persuade, and his authority to punish was limited to church discipline - typically withholding the Lord's Supper, which seems awfully trivial to us, but you can imagine the effect that denying the Eucharist would have on a city that had only recently expelled the Roman church.

Calvin and Servetus actually had some history: while Servetus was obviously brilliant, he was apparently quite intense and possibly unbalanced. He obviously saw some of the young Calvin's brilliance, and had written several letters to Calvin attempting to "convert" him to his own point of view. At one point he asked to meet Calvin in Paris (Calvin was exiled from Paris at the time due to persecution of Protestants), but when Calvin risked his life sneaking into the city, he discovered that he had been stood up.

Servetus had already been tried and sentenced to death in France for his heresy; he escaped and made a beeline for Geneva, where he very unwisely attended church and was recognized by Calvin. Servetus was a wanted criminal. At this point it became Calvin's civic duty to identify and have him arrested, and to act as an expert witness in theology at his trial.

After Servetus' conviction - at which point the death penalty was a foregone conclusion, not only in Geneva but any part of Europe at the time - Calvin petitioned the city council to execute him by beheading, which was more humane than burning him at the stake. They refused - again, out of spite. Meanwhile, in his capacity as the pastor of the city, he met with Servetus in jail and pleaded with him to recant.

In retrospect we really have to view Calvin as a man of his time. In a time when a secular society was literally unheard of, heresy was not only an ecclesiastical offense, but a civil one. It was regarded as a threat to social order on a level with treason. Servetus would have been executed in Paris by the Catholics, had he not escaped. Other Reformers, such as Farel, Martin Bucer, Philip Melanchthon, and Theodore Beza would have done the same thing. However, since Servetus decided to hide out in Geneva, it's John Calvin that gets singled out for vilification.

Good stuff there Ransom!

 

[Rippon]

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.

Facts are fine to have as company!

 

[Rippon]

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!

I do like your fact-filled post!

 

[Rippon]

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.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[Rippon]

It appears to me - and I am sure to may others, as well - that you are not driven by a love of the truth, but a desire to vilify a departed brother in Christ by raising any possible calumny against him that you can find, no matter whether it is true or false.

How sadly true that is!

 

[Rippon]

My personal reading of this piece of history - and I emphasize that this is strictly my "armchair quarterback" interpretation of the facts based upon what I know - is that Michael Servetus was seriously unhinged. Genius and insanity often seem to go together.

It is known that Servetus and Calvin had corresponded prior to his arrest in Geneva. Calvin's intellect was formidable, and he had made a name for himself as one of the leaders of the new evangelical movement in Paris. Perhaps Servetus saw a kindred spirit that he could convert to his own way of thinking.

I have mentioned the time that Servetus arranged a secret meeting with Calvin in Paris, where upon returning clandestinely at the risk of his life, Calvin realized he had been had.

At another point, Servetus had sent him a manuscript of his yet-unpublished "Restitution of Christianity," promising he would read of "stupendous and unheard-of things." He then basically pressed Calvin to respond to his thesis point-by-point. In response Calvin, who had no time to be writing books back to Servetus, sent him a copy of the Institutes and referred him there for his answers. Servetus returned it, thoroughly marked up with criticisms. Since Servetus' letters were becoming more and more strident, around this time Calvin basically decided to ignore him, although Servetus sent something like thirty more letters that went unanswered.

When Calvin wrote Farel that Servetus would not "depart alive" from Geneva, he was not making a threat, but issuing a warning: Calvin would not guarantee his safe passage. Servetus did not heed the warning, and he received the due penalty of his error.

We need more people like you on the BB!

 

[DHK]

Really Rippon! Diggin up a thread from 2005 and responding to people who no longer post here is not the most ethical thing to do. Stick to the history forum instead of repeating the same rant here.