# Michael Servetus



## Greg (Feb 3, 2006)

Sorry as I'm sure this has been discussed and talked about before, but being fairly new to embracing the Doctrines of Grace (less than a year) what can I read to fairly and accurately understand the history of Calvin and Servetus and what exactly happened. Most places I go to on the web only present it in a manner to simply dismiss and condemn Calvin and what he taught. Servetus is also usually brought up whenever I have a discussion with an Arminian who is strongly opposed to Calvinism, and frankly since I'm ignorant on this issue, I really don't have any input in the matter. Thanks.


----------



## BobVigneault (Feb 3, 2006)

Hi Greg,
Servetus was discussed in this thread and also some other threads linked to by Andrew Myers.
Glance through those and then discuss any questions that might come up. Blessings!

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11418#pid162943

[Edited on 2-3-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 3, 2006)

If you do a search on the word Servetus, you can find more information about what really happened. However, there are some key things to keep in mind. 

Michael Servetus was a wicked man. This is acknowledged by any fair Trinitarian student of history. He was a blasphemer and an anti-Trinitarian. He was persistent and public with his blasphemy. He was warned not to show up in Geneva. He would have been condemned and executed had he stayed in Roman Catholic territory or had he visited anywhere else in Europe, whether Protestant or Catholic. For some strange reason, he chose to come back to Geneva and publicly blaspheme. 

Calvin was not a civil magistrate. He did not pass judgment on Servetus. The Council of Geneva judged and executed Servetus for his crimes. They chose the manner of his execution (by fire) over Calvin's objection (he thought the pyre was too severe). In the process of passing judgment, the Council had the full support of all the Reformers in Europe. Servetus' guilt was not controversial at the time; the manner of his execution was, but the burning of Servetus is not something that can be attributed to Calvin.

I think what most people today _really_ object to and prefer to blame Calvin for is the concept -- advocated by Calvin in the _Institutes_ and elsewhere -- that civil magistrates have a duty to uphold the entire moral law of God, ie., the Decalogue, including the first table. Thus, by punishing blasphemy, Calvin believed that the magistrate was enforcing the first table of the law according to his place and calling, as well he should. 

It is this principle to which modern minds strenously object. That is the real nature of the controversy over Servetus. The historical facts viewed without the lens of ACLU-style antagonism to theocratic principles of government would show that Calvin had a limited, non-determinative role in Servetus' death. He was in favor of the guilty judgment but not as to the manner of execution. But the principle that magistrates have the right and duty to punish crimes against the first table of the law is part and parcel of Calvinism and Reformed Biblical views on civil government.

The Truth About Calvin and Servetus by Loraine Boettner

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Feb 3, 2006)

this question comes up alot on line.
i tried to write a coherent essay on it at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson15_essay.html

i update the bottom section with new webpages on the topic as i come across them.
i'd appreciate any helpful criticism i can get.
thanks.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 3, 2006)

No comment here.


----------



## Peter (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Ok, forgive my own ignorance, but what _should have_ happened to Servetus, given the circumstances?



Personally, I'm disposed towards hangings. "Cursed is anyone that hangeth on a tree."


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 3, 2006)

Here is Kuyper's comment, quoted in the Boettner article referenced above. 



> Dr. Abraham Kuyper, the statesman-theologian from Holland, in speaking to an American audience not many years ago expressed some thoughts in this connection which are worth repeating. Said he:
> 
> The duty of the government to extirpate every form of false religion and idolatry was not a find of Calvinism, but dates from Constantine the Great and was the reaction against the horrible persecutions which his pagan predecessors on the Imperial throne had inflicted upon the sect of the Nazarene. Since that day this system had been defended by all Romish theologians and applied by all Christian princes. In the time of Luther and Calvin, it was a universal conviction that that system was the true one. Every famous theologian of the period, Melanchthon first of all, approved of the death by fire of Servetus; and the scaffold, which was erected by the Lutherans, at Leipzig for Kreel, the thorough Calvinist, was infinitely more reprehensible when looked at from a Protestant standpoint.
> But whilst the Calvinists, in the age of the Reformation, yielded up themselves as martyrs, by tens of thousands, to the scaffold and the stake (those of the Lutherans and Roman Catholics being hardly worth counting), history has been guilty of the great and far-reaching unfairness of ever casting in their teeth this one execution by fire of Servetus as a crimen nefandum.
> Notwithstanding all this I not only deplore that one stake, but I unconditionally disapprove of it; yet not as if it were the expression of a special characteristic of Calvinism, but on the contrary as the fatal aftereffect of a system, grey with age, which Calvinism found in existence, under which it had grown up, and from which it had not yet been able entirely to liberate itself.(9)



[Edited on 2-4-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Peter (Feb 3, 2006)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> So, instead of excommunication, the death penalty?



Both.

Execution of Servetus Defended - John Knox 

Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty - George Gillespie


----------



## crhoades (Feb 4, 2006)

23.N.10. It is the responsibility of the magistrate that sound doctrine should obtain within his dominion; also, by arms and force he should prevent anything from being done in it which may be incompatible with the lawful service of God.

Propositions from the 29th, 30th, and 31st Chapters of Genesis (1543)


40.N.14. In a well ordered state the crime of blasphemy against God should be a capital offense.

Propositions from the 20th Chapter of Exodus (1545)



Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562) from The Peter Martyr Library Vol. I Early Writings - Creed, Scripture, Church (1994)

Vermigli was an Italian Reformer and had tours of duty in Strausbourg, Oxford, and Zurich.


----------



## satz (Feb 4, 2006)

As much as i do agree that in theory civil magistrates have a duty to punish blasphemy, i do not think New Testament christians should worry too much about it.

1 Cor 5, 2 Thess 3, 2 Tim 3 and Romans 16 all tell New Testament churches and christians how to deal with heretics and unrepentant sinners; throw them out of the church, and seperate from them.

There is not a word to any church about putting anyone to death for anything in the new testament. 

Yes, arguably that is the magistrate's job, but i think scripture generally teaches that since the end of national israel, the ungodly will rule the nations. Christians are to make the best they can out of that situation. Every now and again a nation may be blessed with a Daniel, Joseph or Cornelius, and we should be thankful. Christians can and should do all they can to try to effect practical righteousness in their nations, but they should not be too surprised when things do not work out, nor should they devote undue time and attention to what is, i think, a minor concern in new testament christianity.

As for Servetus, i think he should have been excommunicated and banished from the church. Execution is not a weapon the church after israel is supposed to wield.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 4, 2006)

An element in this that has gone unmentioned is the political angle that if Geneva had not put Servetus to death it would have put into danger the entire population because like it or not heresy was a crime (and the proceedure against Servetus was a legal one) and in the current wars raging heresy was worse because it was like treason in time of war. Servetus was a strange fellow with a rather intense death wish because he knew all this. The mode of punishment was just what WAS back then. It's harsh and cruel to us, but think about this: in an era where crime is easier to commit and get away with (no electricity, no alarms, no forensics, etc.) mode of punishment plays a bigger role in deterrence. 

Only one person was put to death in Geneva in Calvin's lifetime, and it was a person Calvin had no official part in prosecuting or judging. 

Personally I see demonic activity in Servetus and his life. He hounded Calvin for years. I really think the devil needed this one thing on Calvin - or that he could smear Calvin and Calvinism with - and thus he got it. It wasn't smart to execute Servetus, in any context including the political/wars context. It was necessary to separate the Reformation from him, but that could have been done. Servetus was a clown. Make him defend his doctrine by the Word of God in an environment where he couldn't get away with sophistry. 

It was Calvinists who were put to the stake for truth and conscience, and it was Calvinists who championed freedom of conscience (against the tyranny of Rome) by degree, it didn't occur all at once, but it was part of the Reformation (and it was new), and the devil was able to muddy that up with one act. Maybe that was inevitable. The world finds a way to deny the truth one way or another. 

Anyway, when Roman Catholics or atheists play this canard they expose themselves for what they are. Dishonest. One death that's an exception equals a million similar deaths that were the rule. OK.


----------



## Greg (Feb 4, 2006)

Thanks for the responses everyone. Alot to read through so far. Thanks.


----------



## crhoades (Feb 4, 2006)

a sampling of quotes from two Scottish commissoners to the Westminster Assembly on the punishment of blasphemy.

"Such as blaspheme God or Jesus Christ, or who shall fall away themselves and seduce others to idolatry, ought to be utterly cut off according to the law of God. But as for other heretics, they are to be chastened with medicinal punishments as mulcts, imprisonments, banishment, by which, through God's blessing, they may be humbled, ashamed, and reduced. Not that I think the proper end of civil and coercive punishments to be the conversion and salvation of the delinquent (which is the end of church censures and of exommunication itself), but that the right method of proceeding does require that the Magistrate inflict the smaller punishments first.

George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, Lon. 1645 (reprinted in : Naphtali Press, Anthology of Presbyterian and Reformed Literature, Volume 4. Dallas Texas, 1991) p.194

"I know some divines hold that the judicial law of Moses, so far as concernth the punishments of sins against the moral, idolatry, blasphem, Sabbath-breaking, adultery, theft, etc. , ought to be a rule to the Christian magistrate; and, for my part, I wish more respect were had to it, and that it were more consulted with."

George Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming; 1646 [Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle, 1985] Preface.

"It is but a poor argument whereby Bishop Bilson, Of the Government of he Church, chap. 4, would prove the cutting off not to be meant of excommunication, because it is applied even to capital offences, such as the law elsewhere appointeth men to be put to death for, as if it were any absurdity to say, that one and the same offence is to be punished sub formalitate scandali with excommmunication, and sub formalitate criminis with capital punishment; and who knoweth not that a capital crime is a cause of excommunication, which is also sometimes the sole punishment, the magistrate neglecting his duty. If a known blasphemer or incestuous person be not cut off by the magistrate, as he ought by the Law of God, shall he therefore not be cut off by excommunication. If he had proved that all the causes of cutting off in the law were capital crimes, he had said much; but that will never be proved."

George Gillespie, Aaron's Rod Blossoming; p. 30

"These are of a wide difference, to kill blasphemers, and false teachers for spreading heresies and blasphemies; and to compell them by warre, and fire and sword to be of our Christian Religion. As I hope to prove, for the former is lawfull, the later unlawfull.

Samuel Rutherford, A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience (London 1649). p. 53

"...but sure these examples prove corporal, and sometimes capitall, punishment ought by the magistrate to be inflicted on all blasphemers, on all ringleaders of idolatry and false worship, as Exod. 32.

Rutherford, Free Disputation...p. 184

"The expresse law of God, and of nature written in the hearts of all, proveth that the seducer should die, Deut. 13. If a prophet or a Dreamer arise, and say, let us goe after other God's, he shall be put to death. That is no temporary law obliging the Jews only, ..."

Rutherford, Free Disputation...p.185

"Levit. 24:10-14 which is, ver. 15,16. Whosoever curseth his God shall beare his sin, 16. And whosoever blasphemeth the name of the Lord hee shall surely be put to death; and all thecongregation shall certainly stone him, as well the stranger as hee that is borne in the land, when hee blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall be put to death: there be two things here for me that proveth this was no judiciall temporary law binding Israel onley. 1. His God, Holdeth forth, that nature abhorreth, and the some of the first command written in the heart is, hee that curseth his maker whom he is to blesse, love, and serve with all his heart, shoul.d dye. 2. This law obligeth the stranger, and any heathen to be put to death, if hee should blaspheme God, saith it is the law of nature, and obligeth us under the New Testament as being the highest sin that nature crieth shame, and woe upon."

Rutherford, Free Disputation...p. 183


----------



## just_grace (Feb 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Greg_
> Sorry as I'm sure this has been discussed and talked about before, but being fairly new to embracing the Doctrines of Grace (less than a year) what can I read to fairly and accurately understand the history of Calvin and Servetus and what exactly happened. Most places I go to on the web only present it in a manner to simply dismiss and condemn Calvin and what he taught. Servetus is also usually brought up whenever I have a discussion with an Arminian who is strongly opposed to Calvinism, and frankly since I'm ignorant on this issue, I really don't have any input in the matter. Thanks.



Calvin sinned.
Farel sinned more.
Servetus will 'stand' before God as will the rest of us.

Servetus begged for mercy. We know what happens to those who do not give mercy, don't we.

[Edited on 2-4-2006 by just_grace]


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 4, 2006)

> "The expresse law of God, and of nature written in the hearts of all, proveth that the seducer should die, Deut. 13. If a prophet or a Dreamer arise, and say, let us goe after other God's, he shall be put to death. That is no temporary law obliging the Jews only, ..."



Undoubtedly the proper penalty is stoning to death. But perhaps someone with an absolutely faultless theology should cast the first stone (John 8:7 )?

Any volunteers?

Martin


----------



## smhbbag (Feb 6, 2006)

In John 8, Christ does not require sinlessness on behalf of the crowd stoning in order for it to be proper. If so, he has rebuked His own Law by teaching that it is sin for a sinner to execute another sinner by stoning. Yet this is precisely what God's perfect Law required. Can the Law command what is sin? Certainly not.

Instead, I believe Christ is calling them out for their sin involving the very affair they tried to prosecute. The young lady in question, while certainly an adultereress, seems to have been entrapped and ensnared by the Pharisees for the purpose of causing difficulty to Christ.

I believe the intent is "Any one of you is without sin (in this matter) may cast the first stone." They refused, knowing Christ saw through their deceit. 

So it is not, in any way, to be taken as an admonition against the death penalty.


----------



## just_grace (Feb 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > "The expresse law of God, and of nature written in the hearts of all, proveth that the seducer should die, Deut. 13. If a prophet or a Dreamer arise, and say, let us goe after other God's, he shall be put to death. That is no temporary law obliging the Jews only, ..."
> ...



Brilliant.


----------



## just_grace (Feb 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > "The expresse law of God, and of nature written in the hearts of all, proveth that the seducer should die, Deut. 13. If a prophet or a Dreamer arise, and say, let us goe after other God's, he shall be put to death. That is no temporary law obliging the Jews only, ..."
> ...



[Edited on 2-7-2006 by just_grace]


----------

