Jun
22
2007
Calvin and Servetus
Mention Calvin’s name in most contexts, and the result–as evidenced by a recent blog entry of mine about Calvin’s theology being understood–immediately produces chants of “Servetus! Servetus! Servetus!”
Here is Packer, in an essay entitled “John Calvin and Reformed Europe,” commenting on Calvin and Servetus:
The anti-Trinitarian campaigner Servetus was burned at Geneva in 1553, and this is often seen as a blot on Calvin’s reputation. But weigh these facts:
- The belief that denial of the Trinity and/or Incarnation should be viewed as a capital crime in a Christian state was part of Calvin’s and Geneva’s medieval inheritance; Calvin did not invent it.
- Anti-Trinitarian heretics were burned in other places beside Geneva in Calvin’s time, and indeed later–two in England, for instance, as late as 1612.
- The Roman Inquisition had already set a price on Servetus’ head.
- The decision to burn Servetus as a heretic was taken not only by Calvin personally but by Geneva’s Little Council of twenty-five, acting on unanimous advice from the pastors of several neighboring Reformed churches whom they had consulted.
- Calvin, whose role in Servetus’ trial had been that of expert witness managing the prosecution, wanted Servetus not to die but to recant, and spent hours with him during and after the trial seeking to change his views.
- When Servetus was sentenced to be burned alive, Calvin asked for beheading as a less painful alternative, but his request was denied.
- The chief Reformers outside Geneva, including Bucer and the gentle Melanchthon, fully approved the execution.
The burning should thus be seen as the fault of a culture and an age rather than of one particular child of that culture and age. Calvin, for the record, showed more pastoral concern for Servetus than anyone else connected with the episode. As regards the rights and wrongs of what was done, the root question concerns the propriety of political paternalism in Christianity (that is, whether the Christian state, as distinct from the Christian church, should outlaw heresy or tolerate it), and it was Calvin’s insistence that God alone is Lord of the conscience that was to begin displacing the medieval by the modern mind-set on this question soon after Servetus’ death.
John Piper, in his biographical address on Calvin (published in The Legacy of Sovereign Joy), devoted an appendix to the issue, entitled Calvin’s Barbaric World – The Case of Michael Servetus. Here is how he concludes:
So the times were harsh and immoral and barbaric, and had a contaminating effect on everyone, just as we are all contaminated today by the evils of our time. Their blind spots and evils may be different from ours. And it may be that the very things they saw clearly are the things we are blind to. It would be foolhardy to say that we would have never done what they did under their circumstances, and thus draw the conclusion that they have nothing to teach us. In fact, what we probably need to say is that some of our evils are such that we are blind to them, just as they were blind to many of theirs, and the virtues they manifested in those times are the very ones that we probably need in ours. There was in the life and ministry of John Calvin a grand God-centeredness, Bible-allegiance and iron constancy. Under the banner of God’s mercy to miserable sinners we would do well to listen and learn.
23 Comments
These is helpful material.
The discussion from serveral days ago one this blog is typical of the fire-storm that often breaks loose when Calvin is mentioned. The fact is that to call Calvin a murderer is a denial of history, a denial of the state theology of the day, and probably the work of people who dislike his theology. Calvin and the men of his day (and the men in the Puritan era) viewed the Christian state as the equal of Old Testament Israel’s theocracy. This ment that they simply applied the same standard punishment for heretics in their day as was applied to those in Israel who were witches, idol worshipers, or unrepentive of their rebellion. While I disagree with the action taken in Geneva, I understand that it was the failure of the entire “dark” ages not just the failure of John Calvin.
Before we cast stones at this historical culture, we live in a culture that has legalized the murder of over 45 million babies through abortion. How many people on this blog voted for a candidate who took any position other than total pro-life in a previous election? Would you then consider yourself a murderer? If you hold the same standard for yourself as some hold for Calvin, then you are guilty!
i am sorry, i think you are letting Calvin off the hook. not because what you said isnt true, but despite the cultural background, it would still be wrong to put someone to death for not believing in the “orthodox” faith.
do you honestly believe Christ intended that we go around killing other “christians” because they werent “orthodox”?
if you believe so, then i think you miss the entire message of Scripture. JC came to seek and save what was lost, not kill those who didnt agree with Him.
so was it more understandable because of the cultural norms, YES ABSOLUTELY!! but was calvin wrong, YES ABSOLUTELY!!
there are no two ways about it. i could speak soft kind words, but i believe you are overlooking a sin that is forgiven, but we should also learn from it. we should never, ever do something like that again.
just because david killed uriah, doesnt mean it wasnt his sin. in his timeperiod, that was much more acceptable. just because people around us do something, doesnt give us license to do it as well.
what ever happened to “here i stand” as being part of a reformed creed? well, guess what, despite being a godly man who did some incredible things, i truly believe that calvin and the council were WRONG for killing servetus, no matter how much a heretic he was (which is also very questionable from what i have read).
“this is my Father’s House and you have turned it into a den of thieves.”
peter
Why are you or Packer spending your time defending someone who executed someone for a belief? I will grant you all the facts that you stated, that he was a product of his time, etc. But we don’t excuse gang members because they were a product of ghetto culture, we abhor them and thumb our noses. We don’t excuse Nazi war criminals because they were a product of social conditions in 1930s Germany. Why such a strong urge to defend him?
Isn’t it better that we be honest about our faults and the faults of our heroes? Then we’ll be seen as more human and more credible. I’m just curious why the desperation and need to spin so much to defend this guy. What are we afraid of? If we like his teaching, we like his teaching. If not, then there are plenty of good if not better theologians around today to read.
Carlton, I voted completely pro-life in every election I’ve been involved in. Will calling our pro-choice culture murderous be a “denial of history” in 500 years. No, what’s wrong is wrong and Reformed people should be first and foremost in calling their own out on the carpet about it. But granted that doesn’t mean I won’t read theology written by pro-choice advocates, just like I have read Institutes though what Calvin did was wrong.
Everybody is out to defend themselves and make themselves as good as possible through spin. Why do Reformed people have to be like the rest of the lemmings. Maybe if we came to grips with the brutality of what Calvin did, though he was part of a culture of death and intolerance, we would be a lot more respected and listened to in the broader Christian and even non-Christian community.
1 John 3:15
Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.
Carlton says: “The fact is that to call Calvin a murderer is a denial of history, a denial of the state theology of the day, and probably the work of people who dislike his theology.”
The death of Servetus at the hands of Calvin was an obscene and grisly killing that violates the teachings of Jesus in such an egregious way that it should be obvious to every Christian person that it was a murder.
What interests me is that Calvinists continue to defend Calvin, in spite of the clear evidence.
Who are Packer and Piper, really, if they spend their time sympathizing with Calvin as a victim of his cultural times or a pretty nice guy who just made a mistake by torturing someone to death?
If I can’t trust them to identify a callous, politically motivated killing, then what moral credibility do they have?
Quote from Packer:
“it was Calvin’s insistence that God alone is Lord of the conscience that was to begin displacing the medieval by the modern mind-set on this question soon after Servetus’ death.”
In fact, Sebastian Castellio, a brilliant contemporary of Calvin’s, is credited with promotion of the idea of freedom of conscience during this time.
Sebastian Castellio was an associate of Calvin’s in Geneva, but was ultimately tossed out of his position due to his insistence that the clergy should not persecute those with alternate opinions. Calvin was directly responsible for Castellio’s expulsion and subsequent poverty.
Castillio was sickened by the burning of Servetus, and stated outright that Calvin’s hands were bloody. He wrote a pamphlet in protest of Calvin’s behavior.
How did Packer manage to attribute to Calvin the opinions of another man, particularly one who was persecuted and made homeless by Calvin? Packer is either confused, or something worse…
Where’s “lordship” salvation when you need it?
This deserves a whole chapter in The Gospel According to Jesus.
Once again all of the comments on this comment section are missing the point. I never said Calvin was right in his conviction and subsequent execution of Servetus. None of you can say that I have stated this as the right action. My point, the hitorically accurate and honest point, is that Calvin believed himself to be protecting the “Israel of God.” He did beg the mercy of the court on behalf of Servetus. He did beg and plead with Servetus himself to recant his heretical viewpoint. In the end because of the position he held in the city, he was required to prosecute the Heretic!!! Have you a defense for the man Servetus? He could not muster one against the fact that he denied the Trinity, the diety of Christ, and other dangerous beliefs.
Second, I want to distinguish between a “gang member” and Calvin. Calvin was not a citizen acting on his own behalf. He was an officer of the court of Geneva. To call him a gang member would be like calling your local D.A. a gang member. That is off base! Again I believe many on this board no little of the situation we are discussing.
Third, Calvin was a man that faced personal death many times. He was hunted in France, yet he bravely went their on many occasions to plead with the people to accept Christ. He even went their to reason with Servetus and convince him to return to orthodox, biblical, Christianity.
Fourth, I would never advocate the killing of a unorthodox Christian or non Christian in our society. To charge me with this is unjust.
Fifth, a simple question. Do you believe that Moses and Joshua, all of the judges, and the kings of Israel were justified in stoning witches and idolaters to death in their society? If you answer yes, then you sound like Calvin. Calvin, and almost every other Christian in his day, believed their society was the “Israel of God.” Now I believe that is true of the church, but I believe that the Old Testament law has been abrogated by Christ in respect to the punishment for these unorthodox crimes. Remember Servetus would have been allowed to hold his personal belief for his entire life. His crime was that he was trying to lead innocent people down the path of destruction with him.
Finally, for any person on this board to question the salvation of one of the greatest students of the Word, one of the greatest pastor/theologians that God ever gifted his Church, and a man that we should praise God for because it was his ministry that reached the ears of a man in Scotland, John Knox, who led revival in the isles and then that spread to our forefathers in the colonies. We should be fare with history, but that is a requirement on both sides. In the end Calvin was wrong for his execution of this heretic, but he was also a child of God without question!
None of Calvin’s “defenders” say that what he did was OK, just that it has to be understood in the context of his day, not as though he just hated Servetus and killed him for kicks & giggles. Sort of like Jonathan Edwards owning slaves. We don’t claim he was right, or that it was OK because we like JE. Just that he was a man of his time, a time that was subject to human sin like ours.
You get this “Calvin was a murderer” line a lot of times in talks about Calvinism. Something that Calvin-haters (or people who want to make Servetus a hero) don’t address is that even if he were a murderer, it wouldn’t necessarily make his doctrine wrong. If Calvinism (narrowly understood as the 5 points) is wrong, it’s wrong because it’s unbiblical, not because of Calvin’s actions. The whole “Calvin is a murder” thing is a red herring that gets people out of serious biblical discussion. Plus it’s a historically naive thing to say, as my colleague Carlton has shown.
Carlton says: “Calvin was not a citizen acting on his own behalf. He was an officer of the court of Geneva.”
Hulme says: “His [Servetus’s} religious views had neither been printed nor uttered in Genevan territory. The Genevan government, therefore, had not the slightest legal jurisdiction for his arrest, imprisonment, torture and death.”
Why, then, one wonders, was Servetus arrested?
Newman says: “Calvin used his influence to secure his arrest, condemnation and execution.”
Calvin HIMSELF stated that HE would not let Servetus leave Geneva alive, should Servetus ever enter the city. Afterwards, he took the credit for the execution and bragged about it to friends.
Finally, we know that the execution of Servetus secured Calvin’s power in Geneva. Clearly, the Genevans knew exactly who was responsible for Servetus’s death, and they considered themselves warned of the consequences should they challenge Calvin’s power or pride.
jake or melissa says: “The whole “Calvin is a murder” thing is a red herring that gets people out of serious biblical discussion.”
If the chief proponent of a distinctive theology brutally kills and persecutes those who disagree with him, then it IS part of a serious biblical discussion.
Twig,
Arminius never used this faulty line of reasoning to debate with Calvinists. He recognized Calvin as a man of God, with whom he disagreed.
Here is what Arminius said,
“Next to the study of the Scriptures which I earnestly inculcate, I exhort my pupils to peruse Calvin’s Commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmich himself (a Dutch divine, 1551–1608); for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, or rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent spirit of prophecy. His Institutes ought to be studied after the (Heidelberg) Catechism, as containing a fuller explanation, but with discrimination, like the writings of all men.”
Mark and Maki,
That’s an interesting quote. However, it’s an argument from silence. We don’t know everything that Arminius said about Calvin.
But in the end, it doesn’t matter what Arminius thought about Calvin’s actions with Servetus.
Calvin’s actions were wrong and not in line with the teachings of Christ on this issue.
I realize that doesn’t mean the man wasn’t a good theologian. However, he was a flawed man, who made some good choices and some wicked choices.
We shouldn’t try to get him off the hook just because we like his theology.
However, I do think that Calvin’s actions should make us question his theology at least a little bit. Jesus said that you should judge teachers by their fruit. You can’t separate the man from the message too much. Our beliefs form our actions.
Daniel,
You missed my point. Please read the entries before to see the flow and where my quote fits.
Daniel,
I am not trying to pick a fight, but are you saying a direct quote from Arminius is an argument from silence? I am not sure that is what you mean.
Just because Arminius once said that Calvin’s commentaries were helpful doesn’t mean that he personally approved or disapproved of Calvin’s actions concerning Servetus.
But ultimately it doesn’t matter what Arminius thought of Calvin.
Jesus said that we should judge teachers by the fruit of their lives. Ideas have consequences. Calvin’s beliefs about God influenced his decision to execute Servetus.
So if we believe that what Calvin did was wrong, we should examine the rest of his belief system to see just how faithful he was to Scripture.
Mark or Maki says: “Arminius never used this faulty line of reasoning to debate with Calvinists. He recognized Calvin as a man of God, with whom he disagreed.”
Let’s see what you’re assuming:
1. I have pointed out that the chief proponent of Calvinism, Calvin, entrapped and had a man unjustly killed in Geneva for reasons of political power and personal vindictiveness.
Therefore…
2. I must be an anti-Calvinistic Armenian who values the testimony of Arminius as much as Calvinists value Calvin’s various pronouncements.
In actuality, I don’t really know much about Armenian theology, and I have no loyalty to Armenius. I never heard the word “Armenian” until I attended a Methodist church several years ago, in reference to the idea that some Methodists believe that Christians can lose their salvation.
I don’t understand the thing Calvinists have with picking a side and wearing a team shirt.
I believe Calvinists are held to the same standards as other Christians, regardless of their particular theology. They are not allowed to kill, torture, persecute others. They are not permitted to coerce others to act or speak against their own consciences.
These things violate the teachings and example of Jesus. John Calvin and his teachings do not abrogate the teachings of Jesus.
Twig,
Sorry to nitpick but it is “Arminian” when referring to Arminius’s followers, and “Armenian” when referring to people from the country Armenia. There are Armenian Christians but they have little to do with Arminians, generally.
As for “wearing a team shirt,” Arminius advocated a theology that bordered on Pelagianism (referring to Pelagius, an ancient British priest that believed man had no inherited sin nature and could choose to be holy). This belief has led to the idea that men choose God rather than God choosing men, that men are the originators and perfectors of their faith (more or less). Now an Arminian would likely dispute this but it is what it essentially boils down to. This is known as Semi-Pelagiansim. This notion has been taken to extremes by Pentecostals (who believe in perfectionism on earth), and Open-Theists (who believe that in order to keep God free from blame for sin, he must not know the future or the acts we are about to commit, although he can make educated guesses). All of these systems of thought place far to much emphasis on man and his works. The conclusion of these views must lead to: man leads God to action and therefore man is God. Admittedly this is an extreme vocalization, most of these people do not believe themselves to be gods per-se, but it is what underlies their views. Calvinism has been abused by some and has earned a poor reputation, but its benefit is that its aim is the glorification of God over man and the view of God’s glory and plan over creation. A very Biblical concept. The poor living-out of any system should not ondemn the system itself, but that is usually what happens (take epicureanism and hedonism for examples).
By the way, I myself wonder about the whole loss of salvation bit. I have heard both solid Arminians and solid Calvinists spout about “once saved always saved.” I happen to be relatively “Calvinistic” (translated here as: a Christian devoted to the glorification of God and not myself) and still wonder about Hebrews and the loss of salvation. Many Calvinists feel that if we are elect, then God will be faithful to bring us through to Salvation. Some advocate an “already-bu-not-yet view” (please see Dr. Ardel Caneday’s blog, The Race Set Before Us http://www.trsbu.blogspot.com and the book by the same title he co-authored with Dr. Thomas Schreiner). My question has remained, how do we know if WE are th elect. For Arminians, each who choose God are the elect. Many of these, however, do not show the “fruit” of election. It all becomes a big can of worms (which is why we should not be too introspective).
I hope some of that helps. Much of this is all held in contention with some acknowledgement and some denial on the parts of those who I have broadly painted. Nowadays, many people just pick and choose tidbits of theology without always thinking through all of the implications, so you never know where someone is definitely going to land on a topic.
Daniel
If we must examine the theology of Calvin because of his actions, we must examine the theology of every Christian that has ever lived. We have all violated the teachings of Jesus. You are no better than Calvin and neither am I, regardless of our theological leanings. I apoloigize historically for what Calvin did, just as I apologize historically for the Crusades and every other sin that those who call themselves Christians committ, when those from “outside” call us inconsistent. We must all abhor all of our sins, continuing to cling to Christ for more of his grace. I think Calvinists and Arminians would agree.
In regards to championing Calvin, I say that I am so glad that I get my theology from the scriptures with or without Calvin.
-Trey
“If we must examine the theology of Calvin because of his actions, we must examine the theology of every Christian that has ever lived.”
Exactly. Check out 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22.
Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.
Why do people come up with bad theology? Sin. (That’s a pretty Calvinistic idea BTW).
So if that’s true, we should examine not only the theology of those who teach us, but also the lifestyle of those who teach us.
Of course, no one’s infallible in interpreting Scripture, because everyone’s sinned.
But still, we can look at blatent moral errors in the life of a teacher and know that in someway his theology was wrong at points.
For instance, it’s quite obvious that something was wrong with Calvin’s views concerning the relation of the church and state.
Daniel,
Thank you for your good statement:
“it’s quite obvious that something was wrong with Calvin’s views concerning the relation of the church and state.”
That is the point isn’t it. That is all this issue is about.
To everyone else…
I call myself a Calvinist and yet I have read almost nothing from Calvin himself. He is not the “Father” of the theology I ascribe to. Call me Augustian, call me Lutheran, call me Baptist, call me Puritan, but more than all call me a person who is intent on knowing God and understanding Scripture as a whole as God’s Word. That is what I yearn for – To know God deeply through His Word and to help others know this God whom I love. Put me in that box please.
Maybe one thing that is being overlooked in this discussion is the fact that it makes perfect sence that Calvin would participate in the murder of his adversary, given his views on predestination. If his opponent was not one of the elect, what difference does it make if he is murdered? Isn’t Calvin just fullfilling the man’s destiny to be sent to eternal torture for God’s good pleasure? How can anyone hold Calvin responsible for his actions when it is part of the master plan? Calvin would be entirely inocent and only marching along obediantly to the predestined fate of this man. This is why Calvinism is so detestable!
Ransomed,
But that is a flawed view/version of Calvinism. There are very few “Calvinists” who would ever feel that way. If one is consistent, he/she must admit that there is no way to really tell who is or who will be a member of the elect. This is why missions and grace are so important. To assume that someone will not become elect because they currently deny Christ is like assuming that someone is not elect because they confuse theology. Its just plain dangerous and it puts that person in the drivers seat (deciding who is going to heaven and who to hell) which is exactly the opposite of what Calvinism is all about.
Please read the debate between “Twig,” “Joe,” and myself that was under the 2nd quote of the day found in J.T.’s June postings. Blessings.
Steve
The following paper will be of interest and pertinence to you for possibly several reasons among many. It has been our great honor to discern and identify the error and spirit of John Calvin, whose rule is yet propagated in the hearts of men with evil consequences for all. The Lord Jesus Christ has visited us with the Light of His countenance to put an end to this evil, justifying His servants whom Calvin murdered, and His Name in the sight of all.
The Fruit of Cain Multiplied: The Murderer John Calvin
Show me whom you follow, and I will know what manner of person you are or will become. If you do not know whom you are following, don’t you think it is time to find out how and where you are being led? Do you think you will altogether escape the consequences because ignorant? Think again. You already suffer them.
John Calvin was one of the most vicious of wolves ever to pose as a lamb of God. His supremely self-righteous spirit lives on in those who lionize and follow him, even unbeknownst to themselves. Truly, “that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.”
Paul Cohen & Victor Hafichuk
http://www.thepathoftruth.com