Zachary Uram
New Member
Not only did John Calvin not kill him, but Calvin urged him to recant and spare his life!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Servetus
- Thread starter Zachary Uram
- Start date
Zach, with all due respect, you have not been a member longer enough to be confusing us w facts
@JonC
1. John Calvin worked with the Catholic inquisition to murder Michael Servetus because he insulted him.
2. After Michael Servetus managed to escape the Catholic inquisition, he had to flee and ended up in Geneva where John Calvin identified him and presented charges against him.
3. Arrest on Sunday were illegal in Geneva, but the local government made an exception because John Calvin was effectively the God-King of Geneva.
4. John Calvin's first tactic was to murder Michael Servetus under the accusation that he was attacking the efficacy of infant baptisms. Yes, John Calvin was trying to get someone murdered by accusing them of being a Baptist.
Baptists claiming and defending John Calvin, a person who tried to murder someone for being a Baptist, makes no sense.
5. After Michael Servetus successfully argued that heresy should not result in the death penalty, Calvin had to change tactics and argue that Michael Servetus was a blasphemer.
6. Interestingly, John Calvin was an anti-trinitarian as described in the 1537 heresy trial by Bucer. In John Calvin's "Letter to the Polish Brethren" he said to pray to the "Trinity" is a "barbarism".
7. In order to murder Michael Servetus, John Calvin referred back to the Justinian Codex. There was no penalty for heresy on Geneva in 1535 and the highest punishment for blasphemy was banishment. The Justinian Codex didn't provide for the death penalty either, but who was going to argue with Geneva's future God-King?
8. So John Calvin accused Michael Servetus of Blasphemy for "speaking against the Trinity". Michael Servetus's actual view was to deny the Athanasian Creed and accept the Nicene Creed. Oh boy, what a reason to murder someone for.
9. John Calvin prevented Michael Servetus from appealing to The Council of Two Hundred who would have thwarted John Calvin's murder plans.
10. Finally, John Calvin himself proudly admitted to being the person responsible for murdering Michael Servetus.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Why throw me into the mix? I don't have a dog in the hunt
.I believe that Calvin supported the killing of Servetus but not the manner of death (as it represented an offense against the Church rather than the State). But that's just my opinion about what happened before I was born (perhaps not long before, but before nonetheless).
I suppose he did. There was no separation of politics and religion then. Treason often was religious in nature.
David killed the husband of a woman he had an affair with. My guess is you condemn him also, but it's clear God forgave him.
I don't condone what Calvin did, nor condone the acts of violence all Christians did against one another during that time. Ot was an ugly period in Church history.
I do believe that harping on it for theological points is repulsive to God.
A key difference is that David immediately repented when he was confronted with his sin. John Calvin doubled down and proudly told the world that not only did he do it but that what he did was right. In addition, he said anyone who disagreed with him was also guilty of blasphemy. There is no comparison to David.
Not all Christians were guilty of this violence. Dirk Willems is an example of how a Christian should behave but also how they did behave during this period. There were numerous others.
That's your belief. However, I believe God very clearly communicated in the Bible that leaders should be judged by their behavior. That being said, I try to bring up the history of what happened only when others bring it up, start appealing to tradition, or start misapplying the names of Arminius, Calvin, Pelagius, etc.
When talking to those who simply believe in the doctrines of grace, bringing up the dirty laundry of the Servetus affair is a complete waste of time.
Many times I hate recently quoted what John Calvin believed to simply find out if someone simply believes in the Doctrines of Grace or in John Calvin's Calvinism. I have come to respect a person's belief in the doctrines of grace and as soon as I realize I'm not arguing with a John Calvin Calvinist, I will probably move on.
Very often, rulers make bloody decisions. George Washington killed some of his troops for questioning an order. Shall we hate George Washington?
Servetas was not a "Baptist" just because he questioned infant baptism. He was an Anabaptists, which were martyred by Lutherans, Catholics and John Calvin. At that time, Anabaptists were considered anarchists due their call for separation of church and state. Many were impaled on spikes or burned as heretics.
Also, it was not Calvin who was the anti-trinitarian, it was Servatus. In truth, Servatus was stubborn and hard of heart. Calvin gave him every opportunity to repent and Servatus would not have it.
The Servetus Affair
Servetas was not a "Baptist" just because he questioned infant baptism. He was an Anabaptists, which were martyred by Lutherans, Catholics and John Calvin. At that time, Anabaptists were considered anarchists due their call for separation of church and state. Many were impaled on spikes or burned as heretics.
Also, it was not Calvin who was the anti-trinitarian, it was Servatus. In truth, Servatus was stubborn and hard of heart. Calvin gave him every opportunity to repent and Servatus would not have it.
The Servetus Affair
We also have to keep in mind this was a different time with a different worldview. We can look back and say it was wrong, but Calvin viewed the State as an arm of the Church.
As an example, it is easy to look at George Whitfield and condemn his support of slavery. But it would be wrong to dismiss him as a Christian ir dismiss his works all together because he was on the wrong side of that issue.
Same with the Dutch Reformed who also praised the advantages of slavery to a society. They were wrong on this issue but that does not mean they were wrong about everything.
As an example, it is easy to look at George Whitfield and condemn his support of slavery. But it would be wrong to dismiss him as a Christian ir dismiss his works all together because he was on the wrong side of that issue.
Same with the Dutch Reformed who also praised the advantages of slavery to a society. They were wrong on this issue but that does not mean they were wrong about everything.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Most of the time I tend to shy away from topics such as this, for the simple reason that I often see the opponents of biblical election bringing up this incident in Geneva as "proof" that not only was John Calvin's understanding of how salvation works to be in error, but that his behavior regarding Michael Servetus should seal the lid on the subject.
Call it "character assassination", "ad hominem" " fruit inspection" or whatever one prefers.
To me, the reasoning goes something like this:
"Because John Calvin ruled Geneva with an iron fist and sat in judgment over the death of Michael Servetus, this is all the proof we need that the doctrines he held to should immediately be dismissed because he actively condoned and/or participated in the murder of a human being."
Frankly, I find the reasoning amazing because the world's largest proponent of "free will theology" ( which also condemned the doctrines of election, predestination, calling, justification by faith alone and many other things that many believers hold to at the Council of Trent ) is and was guilty of far more heinous behavior during that same time period.
But hardly anyone ever brings up the deaths of those estimated tens of thousands ( at a bare minimum ) at the hands of that Institution when talking about the religious wars during the "Protestant Reformation"...
Those seem to be swept under the rug in their minds, and the "slam dunk" of Michael Servetus seems to be the only thing that should be considered.
In other words, rather than treating things equally and saying,
" Because the ( you know which institution I am referring to ) murdered potentially tens of thousands ( if not far more ) over an 1800 year period, then their views on salvation should be completely ignored."...
...The subject of Calvin's Geneva gets top "billing" and the other's gets little to no attention.
Friends,
Why is this?
Secondly, "Is this even necessary?"
I say, "Let's look at both sides of this and then sweep those horrendous acts aside and focus instead on the words of Scripture."
To me, there's no need to keep bringing up the Michael Servetus / John Calvin connection unless we are going to bring up William Tyndale's ( a so called "Calvinist" years before John Calvin even wrote his "Institutes" ) execution, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572, Mary Queen of Scots' 2 year reign of terror on "Protestants", Queen Elizabeth I's treatment of many Catholics during her reign, etc, etc, etc.
As I see it, this subject has been one in which the problem cannot be solved with ad hominem on either side, and we should abandon it.
The focus should always be the words on the page, and nothing more.
May God bless you all in your continued studies.
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Of course we should! He was a White Male Slave Owner ... BLM.
[oops, sorry. Wrong topic.
]
It's a question of authority - "The powers that be are ordained by God." I'm in power so as God's ordained authority what I say & order is ordained by God.
The Reformers adopted that attitude on an individual leader basis & Christians who disagreed, especially baptists, were judged & executed as heretics. Many Jews, RCs, Anabaptists, Muslims & Protestants suffered for being under the wrong authority.
The saving virtue of Protestantism was the Word of God. The Bible was being printed & widely circulated & read, & many genuine conversions were taking place.
Servetus had a problem. As a Spaniard living during the inquisition he saw the vicious persecution of Jews & Muslims who rejected doctrine of the Trinity. He opposed Rome, but did not accept Protestant doctrine. He wrote to Calvin, then in Paris, expecting dialogue rather than denunciation. He questioned the doctrine, went to Italy & saw the utter corruption of the RCC. That hardened his opposition to the Trinity, so he was condemned to the stake by Rome. He escaped & fled to Geneva, and, though he did not teach, but simply attended church for worship, was recognised by Calvin & arrested as a heretic, tried & sentenced to the stake. Calvin got the approval for the execution from other leaders including Rome.
If Calvin had been a Calvinist, he would have recognised the need for saving grace, allowed Servetus to live in house arrest, forbidding him to teach, while praying for his salvation.
England had trouble with the "divine right" attitude adopted by King Charles I. Parliament opposed him & won the ensuing civil war. Oliver Cromwell took over & became in effect the "power ordained by God." When Cromwell died, his successor was Charles II who viciously implement the authority of the Church of England & enacted many laws against dissenters.
170 years after the "Reformation Day" commemorated as the nailing of 95 theses on the Cathedral door the Baptists could publish the 1689 confession.