# Happy Michael Servetus Day?



## DMcFadden (Oct 27, 2009)

Today marks the anniversary of the death of Michael Servetus.



> Michael Servetus (also Miguel Servet or Miguel Serveto; 29 September 1511 – 27 October 1553) was a Spanish (Aragonese) theologian, physician, cartographer, and humanist. He was the first European to describe the function of pulmonary circulation. His interests included many sciences: astronomy and meteorology; geography, jurisprudence, study of the Bible, mathematics, anatomy, and medicine. He is renowned in the history of several of these fields, particularly medicine and theology. He participated in the Protestant Reformation, and later developed a nontrinitarian Christology. Condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, he was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council.



More pointedly, his death has become THE blot on the reputation of John Calvin who was falsely blamed for it as the "tyrant of Geneva." One need take into account several factors:

* The sensibilities of the 16th century were quite different from those prevalent today. Atttacks on the trinity were taken rather seriously back then as endangering the public order, tempting weak persons into soul destroying damnable heresy, and a challenge to the political structures of society.
* Servetus was condemned to death by the Roman Catholics prior to his ill-fated visit to Geneva.
* Calvin was an "expert witness" in the trial, not the one entrusted with the authority of the sword. He was not even granted bourgois status in Geneva until 1559 (6 years after Servetus' death) and his popularity was at a particularly low ebb in 1553 when Servetus was put on trial.
* The Council sought the opinion of surrounding cantons, receiving the unanimous recommendation to execute Servetus.
* Everyone on all sides in Calvin's day agreed with the execution.
* During an era when hundreds of people were executed in Germany and religious atrocities were not uncommon (cf. Peasants' War in 1525 and the Münster Rebellion of January 1534), Calvin's quarter century combined tenure in Geneva was marked by all of ONE religious execution . . . Servetus (banishment was more common, I count the case of Jacques Gruet as civil, not religious).
* Calvin and the Genevan ministers petitioned the court to mitigate the sentence of Servetus by a more humane method of execution than burning. They were denied.
* Calvin made several efforts to persuade Servetus to repent.

Nevertheless, since the death of Servetus on October 27, 1553, Calvin has been tarred by historians and in the popular imagination as a cruel and bloodthirsty tyrant. NOT true. Considering the weight of historical opprobrium piled on Calvin since then in the popular mind, one might argue about who really "got burned" by the death of Servetus.


----------



## MarieP (Oct 27, 2009)

I should change my avatar in honor of it!!!!


----------



## baron (Oct 27, 2009)

I have had Pastors tell me that is why John Calvin will not be in Heaven according to 1 John 3:15, Rev. 22:15.


----------



## sastark (Oct 27, 2009)

Don't you mean "Happy 6-point Calvinist Day"?


----------



## Skyler (Oct 27, 2009)

It should be "Sad Michael Servetus Day". I'm pretty sure he wasn't happy on this day way back when.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 27, 2009)

sastark said:


> Don't you mean "Happy 6-point Calvinist Day"?



Do you mean this kind of "Six Point Calvinist"???


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 27, 2009)

Servetus was an incorrigible heretic, blasphemer of God and His ministers, and received a just punishment.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 27, 2009)

> “To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine, but to kill a man”


 quote by Michael Servetus


----------



## ewenlin (Oct 27, 2009)

Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 27, 2009)

I suppose Benny Hinn and Salman Rushdie could hide out together.

If we began killing heretics, this would do wonders for the Great Commission.


----------



## tt1106 (Oct 27, 2009)

Good thing the Christian Church is united and there is no longer any heresy to confront.


----------



## Skyler (Oct 27, 2009)

Some of the points are irrelevant to whether or not his action was right or wrong:



DMcFadden said:


> * The sensibilities of the 16th century were quite different from those prevalent today. Atttacks on the trinity were taken rather seriously back then as endangering the public order, tempting weak persons into soul destroying damnable heresy, and a challenge to the political structures of society.



The "sensibilities of the day" don't determine whether it was right or wrong.



> * Servetus was condemned to death by the Roman Catholics prior to his ill-fated visit to Geneva.



The Roman Catholics have been wrong before. 



> * Calvin was an "expert witness" in the trial, not the one entrusted with the authority of the sword. He was not even granted bourgois status in Geneva until 1559 (6 years after Servetus' death) and his popularity was at a particularly low ebb in 1553 when Servetus was put on trial.



This is a good point.



> * The Council sought the opinion of surrounding cantons, receiving the unanimous recommendation to execute Servetus.



Another good point.



> * Everyone on all sides in Calvin's day agreed with the execution.



Again, their opinions don't make the action right or wrong.



> * During an era when hundreds of people were executed in Germany and religious atrocities were not uncommon (cf. Peasants' War in 1525 and the Münster Rebellion of January 1534), Calvin's quarter century combined tenure in Geneva was marked by all of ONE religious execution . . . Servetus (banishment was more common, I count the case of Jacques Gruet as civil, not religious).



Comparing Calvin to contemporaries rather than the standard of good isn't particularly helpful either.



> * Calvin and the Genevan ministers petitioned the court to mitigate the sentence of Servetus by a more humane method of execution than burning. They were denied.



Another good point.



> * Calvin made several efforts to persuade Servetus to repent.



Yet another good point.

Not to defend Servetus or anything--but using fallacious arguments like those doesn't help Calvin's case.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> > “To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine, but to kill a man”
> 
> 
> quote by Michael Servetus



Are you saying that you believe Calvin et. al could not defend the doctrine of the Trinity against Servetus? or Are you saying that after they have defended such they should not be able to prevent him from teaching such?

CT

-----Added 10/27/2009 at 12:20:19 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> I suppose Benny Hinn and Salman Rushdie could hide out together.
> 
> If we began killing heretics, this would do wonders for the Great Commission.



One thing you must remember, no one cared what Servetus believed. They cared about what he was willing to spread and teach publicly.

CT


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 27, 2009)

ChristianTrader said:


> One thing you must remember, no one cared what Servetus believed. They cared about what he was willing to spread and teach publicly.



Precisely. This is the point that needs to be most understood; the civil arm was not used to "make people believe Christianity;" it was used to quell those notorious heretics who were poisoning the state with their public teachings. Whether one agrees with this role of the christian Civil Magistrate or not, this point must be understood lest we continue to caricature the actions of our predecessors.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 27, 2009)

I am saying that the Gospel is not promoted by the burning of heretics and Servetus will always be a stain upon Christianity and used against both Calvin and us. 

I also believe that heretic-burning ranks up there with witch-burnings as evidence that the Reformers were children of their time.

Finally, I am glad that church and state are not merged in such a way that witches, heretics and quakers are still punished by the civil sword for ecclesiastical offenses. 

As we attempt to show the love of Christ to all the people-groups of the world, we do not want to dominate through governmental power, or oppress any of the unbelievers, but we want to serve and suffer for the Gospel rather than eliminate unbelief through the power of the sword.



John F. Fulton, _Michael Servetus Humanist and Martyr_ (Herbert Reichner, 1953), asserts that the Reformers used half-green wood for the funeral pyre.

Walter Nigg, _The Heretics_ (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962), p. 328, speaks of the inhumane conditions of Servetus' imprisonment prior to his execution.

-----Added 10/27/2009 at 12:31:58 EST-----

Servetus' errors had to do with the Trinity. 

Do reformed churches merely lack resolve today, because we have a whole lotta Arians and anti-Trinitarians whom we have never tried to execute? 

Would any of you be willing to submit that proposal to Congress?


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> EST-----[/color][/size]
> 
> Servetus' errors had to do with the Trinity.
> 
> ...



This has nothing to do with it; nor does it mean any churches lack any resolve. Further:

1.) The *church* didn't execute anyone.
2.) No, I would not be willing to submit a proposal to Congress (if I were a congressman) for that; simply because, we are not a Christian Republic which has covenanted. So to make laws for the maintenance and preservation of a religion which has not even been established does not even make logical sense.
3.) Even those nations which _did_ have such laws only had them after the spiritual work of advancing the gospel had produced a Christian people. A people were never coerced by the State to the Christian religion.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Oct 27, 2009)

> Servetus was an incorrigible heretic, blasphemer of God and His ministers, and received a just punishment.



Burning people is not justice. We have no new testament warrant to burn people who teach false teaching. And neither does a governing authority. If that is the plumb line then I deserve to have been burned too. And likely most people on this board. If they didn't want him there they should have just kicked him out. And if they looked around they could have found many more people to burn. Seriously were there no people committing adultery in Geneva? No thief's? No one who believed in baptism by immersion? Why not just drowned them too? Should we just burn all people who are in the UPC? There is no reason to make statements like this.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 27, 2009)

Burning of heretics lest they recant or leave seems to be a form of coercion.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Burning of heretics lest they recant or leave seems to be a form of coercion.



The coercion has to do with what one teaches publically not what one believes. If one didn't want to be a Christian, then alright.

CT


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 27, 2009)

puritanpilgrim said:


> > Servetus was an incorrigible heretic, blasphemer of God and His ministers, and received a just punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> Burning people is not justice. We have no new testament warrant to burn people who teach false teaching. And neither does a governing authority. If that is the plumb line then I deserve to have been burned too. And likely most people on this board. If they didn't want him there they should have just kicked him out. And if they looked around they could have found many more people to burn. Seriously were there no people committing adultery in Geneva? No thief's? No one who believed in baptism by immersion? Why not just drowned them too? Should we just burn all people who are in the UPC? There is no reason to make statements like this.



Respectfully, sir, whether you think Geneva's actions were right or wrong, _please_ read a bit of history on the subject so that you can base your sweeping condemnation on what actually happened instead of upon fabrications of men's minds. Even this very thread contains information which show that your statements have nothing to do with what actually happened.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 27, 2009)

ChristianTrader said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Burning of heretics lest they recant or leave seems to be a form of coercion.
> ...



The points of contention were original sin, infant baptism, and the Trinity. They were theological issues that were being discussed.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Pergamum said:
> ...



And.... is this supposed to be a refutation of my previous post? My point is that this was not 1984.

Secondly, if you did not like the laws of the nation, you could find another nation that was run according to how you wished to see it run.

CT


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 27, 2009)

Skyler said:


> Some of the points are irrelevant to whether or not his action was right or wrong:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't trying to make tight "logical" arguments, valid or fallacious. My point was to provide some historical perspective on the mitigating factors. The environment of 16th century civil practice WAS much different from our own. The prevailing "sensibilities" of the 16th century were quite different from our day. Just as today our sensibilities flag ethnic jokes as utterly inappropriate whereas they were considered "normal" a few decades ago, the 16th century understanding of debate (i.e., filled with pro forma insults and scatological language) is shockingly different from our own, as was their medical practice, as was their jurisprudence respecting heresy. As Prufrock noted, heresy was deemed a crime against the state.

My reference to Roman Catholic condemnation of Servetus was not an appeal to the authority and infallibility of Rome. It was rather an attempt to mute the standard complaint that Calvin, the "tyrant of Geneva" went on a tear and killed Servetus in some rogue act of idiosyncratic anger. EVERYONE, including the other Swiss Cantons and even the Romanists had believed him worthy of death. He had been sentenced to death in France, escaped prison, and made his way to Geneva. The French petitioned Geneva for extradiction so that they might execute him. My point was that not only did Geneva not act alone or unbecomingly, the "whole world" had declared a bounty on Servetus' head, EVEN the Roman Catholics.

Pretty much everyone today (on all sides) says that it was "wrong" to execute Servetus. My points were not about rightness or wrongness, just providing context and mitigation. 

1. Calvin didn't "do" it, Geneva did.
2. In that day where heresy was a crime against the state, the whole of Christendom would have agreed with the action. The comparison with the prevailing patterns may not impress you, but it does me. In an age when hundreds were put to death in Germany, France, and Spain, it is noteworthy that the impact of the Reformation in Geneva was that only ONE man was executed in a quarter of a century for religious reasons. It points to an unusually "humane" jurisprudence contrary to the secular misrepresentations of "Calvin's Geneva."

If you want to judge the past by contemporary standards, you might as well excoriate civil magistrates and Christian ministers for the dangerous practice of blood letting through leeches, which was standard "medical" practice in a former age. 

In a battle of emotions and impressions, mitigating circumstances (such as the universal practice of the day) DO count as helping rehabilitate Mr. Calvin's reputation, in my opinion.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Burning of heretics lest they recant or leave seems to be a form of coercion.



Yet again -- there was not just a general, free-for all burning of anyone who believes something contrary to the Christian faith. Servetus was publicly teaching and proclaiming things contrary to the laws of the state.

Coercing select people into a cessation of publicly teaching certain things is not the same as coercing anyone to be a Christian. If one cannot see the difference between these two things, then any conversation on the topic will be fruitless. The state cannot make me esteem all races alike (not to worry -- of course, I do!); but it *can* prohibit me from publicly spreading teachings that a particular race is, in itself, inferior.


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 27, 2009)

This shouldn't have happened. I certainly don't blame Calvin for it though.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 27, 2009)

The laws of the State were closely aligned with the teachings of the church. There was not a "wall of separation" for sure.

Calvin was also part of the fixture of the Geneva city gov't. He helped with city planning, social welfare, and even sanitation. Church and State were not separate but mixed, such that what the church wanted done, the government would often do. 

Yes, Calvin was not the prosecuting attorney. 

He was, however, consenting to Servetus' death, though he appeared to have tried to persuade Servetus in private. During the trial, however, Calvin did write, ""I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty." (Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962).


When church and state are intermingled, then a heretic also becomes a traitor to one's community. This happens all the time among Muslims in Muslim-States. 

The environment of the Reformation led to theocratic thinking, which fueled the false notion that the civil sword out to punish ecclesiastical heretics.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Oct 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Finally, I am glad that church and state are not merged in such a way that witches, heretics and quakers are still punished by the civil sword for ecclesiastical offenses.



Ironically, on this date in 1659, Quakers William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson were executed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for their religious beliefs. Massachusetts had a law forbidding Quakers in the colony under penalty of death.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 27, 2009)

Yes, and in 1626 Felix Manz was arrested in Zurich and on January 5 1527 was executed by drowning. Later the same year Conrad Grebel was also imprisoned and died the following year from the black plague. Two years later George Blaurock was tortured to death by burning in Italy.

An unhealthy close relationship between church and state led to a number of Reformation-era incidents of "heretics" being killed for ecclesiastical and theological offenses. Some of the Puritans carried this over to the New World, but it did not stick.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> The laws of the State were closely aligned with the teachings of the church. There was not a "wall of separation" for sure.
> 
> Calvin was also part of the fixture of the Geneva city gov't. He helped with city planning, social welfare, and even sanitation. Church and State were not separate but mixed, such that what the church wanted done, the government would often do.
> 
> ...



So you believe what a person teaches has no effect on the actions in a state/country so the state should not be involved in such matters?

My view is that church and state cannot be separated and if one thinks that one has accomplished such, they are just deluding themselves.

"We will just teach that one should sacrifice their children to Molech to appease the gods, but the state should not be concerned".

CT


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 27, 2009)

Maybe this is turning into a theonomy thread.


I am glad for the 1788 Revision of the Westminster Confession.


----------



## Particular Baptist (Oct 27, 2009)

One thing that I think this whole situation proves is that we aren't (and shouldn't be) followers of Calvin (even though I love the work of Calvin), but of Christ. Personally, I come from an Arminian background and I can say that it wasn't John Calvin who convicted me of the Doctrines of Grace and what we would term "Reformed theology", rather it was the God the Holy Spirit speaking through His Word that brought me to, what I believe, a more proper understanding of who God is. 

I'm not here to say that Calvin hasn't been slandered by those who oppose his theology, but I am saying that I'm thankful (as I'm sure everyone here is) that my salvation was secured by Jesus Christ and not by any other man!


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Maybe this is turning into a theonomy thread.



It is not a Theonomy thread, it's a Theocracy thread.

CT


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 27, 2009)

puritanpilgrim said:


> > Servetus was an incorrigible heretic, blasphemer of God and His ministers, and received a just punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> Burning people is not justice. We have no new testament warrant to burn people who teach false teaching.



Aaron,

Having once been a baptist myself, I understand your vantage point.

However, we likewise have no New Testament warrant for the civil magistrate to neglect punishing offenses against the First Table.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Calvin was also part of the fixture of the Geneva city gov't. He helped with city planning, social welfare, and even sanitation. Church and State were not separate but mixed, such that what the church wanted done, the government would often do.
> 
> Yes, Calvin was not the prosecuting attorney.
> 
> He was, however, consenting to Servetus' death, though he appeared to have tried to persuade Servetus in private. During the trial, however, Calvin did write, ""I hope that the verdict will call for the death penalty." (Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962).



Pergy, I don't deny that Calvin consented to the execution nor do I maintain that it was the right thing to do.

However, it doesn't seem that you have given enough weight to the fact that in 1553, Calvin was at the nadir of his popularity. Not only was he NOT a citizen, he was roundly scorned, dogs were named after him, people made fun of him and interrupted his preaching with "rude" biological sounds. 

I'm offended at a lot of things about the 16th century: ridiculously personal attacks in debate, medical and surgical practices that contributed to the death rather than the healing of persons, religious wars, the acceptance of torture of prisoners, etc. But, if we are going to fault the spirit of the times, let's do so without attaching all of the blame to one individual who had a relatively incidental role in the proceedings.

In developing the legacy of Calvin, this does NOT deserve the role it plays in the popular historiography of Calvin.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 27, 2009)

ChristianTrader said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this is turning into a theonomy thread.
> ...



Thank you for the clarification and also for your good thoughts. I am now bowing out of this particular discussion since I have made my point.

*My summmary:*

Calvin was not the prosecuting attorney in Geneva. He even tried to persuade Servetus privately. If someone is guilty for Servetus' death, it would be the city council mainly. 

However, the church and state back then were dangerously close. They were childen of their age. Whether Calvin's teaching helped ameliorate this climate of the age or helped perpetuate this climate is debatable. He did consent to Servetus' death. 

But, Servetus, according to history was the ONLY heretic killed in Geneva while scores were killed elsewhere, and this may prove Calvin's generosity in comparison. However, this incident will blacken the eye of Calvinisits and Protestantism until the Second Coming and I would assert again that I am glad for the 1788 Revision and I do not believe that civil gov't ought to punish theological offenders, nor should we try to influence governmental laws to reflect sectarian interests.


----------



## Oecolampadius (Oct 27, 2009)

I think everyone should also put into consideration the fact that the Genevan Council did not come up with the decision to burn Servetus at the stake by themselves. John T. Mcneill in _The History and Character of Calvinism states:_



> The Council did not wish to act until it had obtained the judgment of the ministers and magistrates of *Zurich*, *Bern*, *Basel* and *Schaffhausen*. To these centers copies of the documents of the trial were sent. *Bullinger* had already expressed a judgment that Servetus ought to be put to death, and the Zurich leader gave the tone to the replies from the other churches. The Bernese replied that in Bern the penalty would be death by fire. All expressed horror at the heresies revealed, and advocated punishment. [emphases mine]


----------



## tcalbrecht (Oct 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Maybe this is turning into a theonomy thread.
> 
> 
> I am glad for the 1788 Revision of the Westminster Confession.




Just ourt of curiosity, what in the 1788 revision would prevent/forbid the state from lawfully executing a heretic against the Christian religion?


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 27, 2009)

The OPC web site, in an article by Dr Hart, explains the substance of the revisions in 1789:




> Quote:
> The substance of the revision was to reformulate the Westminster Divines' teaching on the civil magistrate. The Westminster Assembly had been called by Parliament, and its affirmations about the role and function of the government, especially in ecclesiastical matters, reflected a situation in which the state exerted control over the church as part of the price of religious establishment. The American revision of 1787-1789 took into account the new situation in the United States, where the state had no authority over the church.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 27, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> The American revision of 1787-1789 took into account the new situation in the United States, where the state had no authority over the church.



No doubt a _secular faith_ required this man to make such a blunder. The Federal government was forbidded from establishing any manifestation of the Christian religion, _*because the states had already done so*_. All 13 colonies had either established state churches or had established Christianity as the state religion without reference to any particular denomination being established.

The magistrate was still defined as the nursing father of the Church.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## tcalbrecht (Oct 27, 2009)

Hey, Pergamum.

While I appreciate Dr. Hart's personal analysis, that doesn't really answer my question. And I think he is missing something significant. 

In particular, this:


> Furthermore, the American revision went on to affirm the principle of religious freedom and asserted that the civil magistrate had a duty to protect that liberty, even including the freedom of infidels: "It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury."


The language that Dr. Hart quotes was in the original 1646 WCF. It was not a novelty to the American revision. In its context, it is simply speaking about differences among Christian sects. I.e., “among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.”

Note also the presence and placement of the word “pretense.” The burden of the magistrate is that he should not use religion or lack thereof as some arbitrary criteria for punishment. But that does not prevent the magistrate from exercising his legitimate duty to enforce just laws related to all of the Ten Commandments, including public heresy.

So my question stands regarding the alleged superiority in the 1788 revision in that matter at hand.


----------



## TimV (Oct 27, 2009)

If the guy was let alone to spread his lies, millions might have died. What if the Germans had executed Lenin rather than send him to Russia with gold? The Germans knew what would happen. They sent him to Russia knowing that he would cause the type of social unrest which would force Russian out of the war, and it worked. But was it right morally?

Servatus should be seen in that light. From a _converso_ family in Spain, he spread Jewish objections of the Trinity where ever he went. His "discovery" of the pulmonary circulation of the blood was also plagiarised from a Jewish work not widely circulated at the time. He was kicked out of one city after another because of the civil unrest the authorities knew would be the end result of his teaching.


----------



## BertMulder (Oct 27, 2009)

TimV said:


> If the guy was let alone to spread his lies, millions might have died. What if the Germans had executed Lenin rather than send him to Russia with gold? The Germans knew what would happen. They sent him to Russia knowing that he would cause the type of social unrest which would force Russian out of the war, and it worked. But was it right morally?
> 
> Servatus should be seen in that light. From a _converso_ family in Spain, he spread Jewish objections of the Trinity where ever he went. His "discovery" of the pulmonary circulation of the blood was also plagiarised from a Jewish work not widely circulated at the time. He was kicked out of one city after another because of the civil unrest the authorities knew would be the end result of his teaching.



Exactly. 

And for his sedition he was justly condemned to death.


----------



## Blue Tick (Oct 27, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Servetus was an incorrigible heretic, blasphemer of God and His ministers, and received a just punishment.



Exactly. 


With the absence of a state run prison system and the nanny state mentality. The state wasn’t in a position to “incarcerate” Servetus, nor should they.


----------



## Rich Koster (Oct 27, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).



If someone ever perfects time travel let's send the whole TBN line-up back to Old Geneva


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Oct 27, 2009)

Have you guys seen this? 

Home- Servetus the Evangelical

Dr. White has responded. It seems as "Michael" has challenged Dr.White to a public debate which I am excited about! Dr. White posted the link of "Michael's" response. The Link is here...No one knows the identity of "Michael Servetus" and according to him he will make it known (I believe) on November 19? 

http://servetustheevangelical.com/doc/ResponseToJamesWhite.pdf


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 27, 2009)

XBlackWaterX said:


> Have you guys seen this?
> 
> Home- Servetus the Evangelical
> 
> ...



Hola, my name is Beza the Trinitarian


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 27, 2009)

XBlackWaterX said:


> Have you guys seen this?
> 
> Home- Servetus the Evangelical
> 
> ...





I just love the humility on his website. It so smacks of a Christlike character.



Everyone is out to make a name for himself.


----------



## Jon Peters (Oct 27, 2009)

XBlackWaterX said:


> Have you guys seen this?
> 
> Home- Servetus the Evangelical
> 
> ...



Why debate this guy? I just read a bit of his stuff and he is not all that articulate, nor is he well-reasoned. Does this guy actually have any followers?


----------



## py3ak (Oct 27, 2009)

Another point worth mentioning is that in Calvin's personal correspondence with Servetus, he warned him not to come to Geneva, because of the consequences. When Servetus escaped from the RC lockup, he went to Geneva anyway.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (Oct 27, 2009)

Jon Peters said:


> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> > Have you guys seen this?
> ...



I say debate him to make an example of him!! 

Im sure the online modalists are cheering him on.


----------



## captivewill (Oct 28, 2009)

*Surely you jest !*



ewenlin said:


> Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).



This is ridiculous comment. Maybe you should spend some time in countries where people actually are killed for what they think.

-----Added 10/28/2009 at 09:46:44 EST-----



ewenlin said:


> Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).


Absolutely ridiculous comment. Maybe you should spend some time in countries where people still are killed for what they think. Somebody somewhere no doubt thinks you should be killed for what you think. Youe attitude with the power to carry it out would be appalling.


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 28, 2009)

captivewill said:


> ewenlin said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).
> ...


I'm pretty sure ewenlin was just joking, but in defense of the theocrats on this thread, you should note (as has been stated already) that it is the deception they teach to massive followers that is at issue, not their private opinions.


----------



## captivewill (Oct 28, 2009)

It must be wonderful to have such intimate knowwledge of the Divine will of our Sovereign Lord. I can see why folks are wise to reject the union of church and state. Go olver to Nigeria or China and try to apply your horribly shallow and silly assumptions.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 28, 2009)

Some Alternatives to Church-State Separation

-----Added 10/28/2009 at 09:53:15 EST-----



captivewill said:


> It must be wonderful to have such intimate knowwledge of the Divine will of our Sovereign Lord. I can see why folks are wise to reject the union of church and state. Go olver to Nigeria or China and try to apply your horribly shallow and silly assumptions.



Church and State will always be United, the only question is if the State will be United with the Proper Church.

CT


----------



## au5t1n (Oct 28, 2009)

captivewill said:


> It must be wonderful to have such intimate knowwledge of the Divine will of our Sovereign Lord. I can see why folks are wise to reject the union of church and state. Go olver to Nigeria or China and try to apply your horribly shallow and silly assumptions.


Before you throw out statements like this without having studied the matter (and before the mods get you for being rude after only 5 posts on here...) you might consider viewing some of the theonomy threads to get an idea of what they really believe. No one is suggesting we march over to China and start beheading them.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 28, 2009)

captivewill said:


> It must be wonderful to have such intimate knowwledge of the Divine will of our Sovereign Lord. I can see why folks are wise to reject the union of church and state. Go olver to Nigeria or China and try to apply your horribly shallow and silly assumptions.



William,

Before you throw out the entire Reformed tradition of the first few hundred years as using "horribly shallow and silly assumptions," and as presumptuously asserting some "intimate knowledge of the Divine will," I think some explanations would be in order. This is not to say you must agree with our older teachers, but I'm sure even those who disagree (and disagree vehemently!) do not find them using "horribly shallow and silly assumptions!" These were men who did all based only upon rigorous exegesis.

The older Reformed teachers saw the continuity of a certain _moral principle_ between Old Testament Israel and modern, covenanted, Christian nations. Therefore, once the Word of God has spiritually converted a people and their magistrate, and they have been baptized and declared submission to the Lord, it became that Christian magistrate's duty to watch over the church with respect to it as an outward, civil body: thus to preserve its good order, to call synods when needed for peace and harmony of the church in his land, to ensure the ministry is discharging its duty, etc. See Westminster Larger Catechism Question 129. They saw it as his role as a superior to instruct and admonish his inferiors in the good. 

They also taught that the rule of justice for *all* was none other than the natural law of God; that is, the Law written on the hearts of men. This includes the *substance* of all 10 of the 10 Commandments (certain positive aspects being mixed therein). For the Christian magistrate (or pre-Christian magistrate when the word of God came in the old days), all of the moral law, including the moral-positive elements became his rule of justice in this older Reformed teaching. Consider, for example, the King of Nineveh in the book of Jonah: does scripture seem to indicate that he did rightly or wrongly to issue a decree concerning the worship of the LORD? Or Nebuchadnezzar?

In maintaining order in his realm toward the church, then, the magistrate was seen to have the duty of preserving true teaching. Thus he could do two things: 1.) Establish *this* church as the true and official church in his realm; and 2.) Use his God-given authority to prevent the public teaching and spreading of heresy. No one has ever thought that the magistrate should punish someone simply for believing something different! What happened in the case of Servetus and Geneva was that one *extremely* notorious heretic, preaching against the most fundamental teaching of catholic Christianty, was ordered by the State to stay out of Geneva, as they had a care for the souls under them. He defiantly refused, and was accordingly arrested. 

This, of course, is but a brief introduction; and it is not intended as an argument to convince you of any position: I merely hope to point out that what the older Reformed taught, even if you will think it wrong, did not rest on "horribly shallow and silly assumptions."


----------



## Marrow Man (Oct 28, 2009)

I'm not for burning, but I'd just be happy in our day if churches and denominations would consistently discipline members and ministers who teach heretical doctrines. Instead, too often, the leaven is allowed to remain in the lump of dough.


----------



## captivewill (Oct 28, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> captivewill said:
> 
> 
> > It must be wonderful to have such intimate knowwledge of the Divine will of our Sovereign Lord. I can see why folks are wise to reject the union of church and state. Go olver to Nigeria or China and try to apply your horribly shallow and silly assumptions.
> ...


Thanks for a serious and reasoned reply. I did not mean to say that the reformers were silly and shallow but the comments of the posts to which I spoke. I do believe that experience in places that lack freedom of thought and speech would temper such unwise remarks. And I do not find any instruction of our Lord or of His apostles that would warrant our assumption of any complicity whatsoever in killing a person for speech or teaching. Freedom to rebut and respond...yes. But not to bear the sword.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 28, 2009)

captivewill said:


> And I do not find any instruction of our Lord or of His apostles that would warrant our assumption of any complicity whatsoever in killing a person for speech or teaching. Freedom to rebut and respond...yes. But not to bear the sword.



Of course, you will not find Jesus or His Apostles calling the Church to bear the magistrate's sword, any more than you will find our Lord telling the State to bear or educate children, as this is the family's business. Different jurisdictions have different tasks. Asserting the duty of the magistrate to put evil workers in terror by bearing a sword with which to kill them is not unChristian; on the contrary, denying this duty is to be a companion of murderers or souls and bodies.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 28, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> I'm not for burning, but I'd just be happy in our day if churches and denominations would consistently discipline members and ministers who teach heretical doctrines. Instead, too often, the leaven is allowed to remain in the lump of dough.



Wouldn't that be the proper view of what general equity looks like in the NT Church? 



> ...the New Testament church "fulfills the Old Testament theocracy" (Barker 1990, 95). In applying the Old Testament laws to the church, Paul did not apply them exactly as they were applied in the Old Testament. For instance, In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. According to Old Testament law, the man and the woman should receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). However, this was not recommended by Paul. Rather, the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication (vv. 2, 13). Furthermore, Paul's statement in verse 13 is a quotation of a formula found in Mosaic penal sanctions (Deut. 17:7, 12; 12:19; 19:21, 21:21; 22:21, 24: 24:7).



Third Millennium Ministries


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 28, 2009)

Perg, the use of the term "general equity" in the confession (19.4) refers to that upon which "judicial laws" rest, given "to them also as a body politic." It is not talking about ecclesiastical discipline, but civil law. They are two separate things, for he (20.3) has not "the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

*But*, I don't want to go too far down this road, lest the thread get too far off its initial topic of Servetus.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28 (Oct 28, 2009)

I think it's worth noting that John Calvin's enemies were the ones in power at the time of the Servetus affair. For more information on this history, I'd suggest _Appendix Two: Calvin and Servetus_ to the _Calvin at 500_ edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society's Quarterly Record. It can be read for free online at: http://trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr588.pdf


----------



## ewenlin (Oct 28, 2009)

captivewill said:


> ewenlin said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I wonder if things will be easier if we could just do it like they did back then. No more Benny Hinn, no more Joel Osteen, no more Joyce Meyer, no more (...).
> ...



Elder Cassidy,

I seemed to have hit a sensitive issue there. It was never my intention to assert a modern day theocracy. I was merely drawing a hypothetical situation whereby one sees the vast difference between how heretics were handled then and now. Also, my comment was not directed at anyone or group of people in particular. Nevertheless I do realize I may have overstepped certain lines, evident by your response. I sincerely apologize if my comments offended you.

I too, know what it's like in countries where people are killed for what they think. I have friends who are pastors in certain countries in Asia who have experienced first hand physical persecution, as I myself hail from Asia. Though thankfully none of them have died... so far. Even so, I was never suggesting we kill people for what they thought. That would never happen, nor did it happen then in Servetus' time. It's about those who are vehemently opposing the orthodox truth and preaching contrary heresies. One would notice about the people I mentioned that they are all supposedly "teachers of the faith." 

I should have kept in mind many on the PB are now in other parts of the world. Certain things that are close to the heart to some may easily be taken for granted by others. It is definitely an oversight on my part. Perhaps it's a cultural issue, perhaps I'm simply dense as I often am, perhaps I'm just young as I definitely am.

I'd ask that you grant a fellow brother in Christ a measure of grace, that we may strive to edify one another here on the Puritan Board. Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child. Where I stand among the PB, I am definitely one and may have so demonstrated.

Respectfully,
Ewen


----------



## captivewill (Oct 28, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> captivewill said:
> 
> 
> > ewenlin said:
> ...


Point well taken. Thank you for your clarification. I suspect that even with regard to appropriate cases in which the state should wield the sword I would exclude matters of speech and belief no matter how detestable. When states such as muslim states have such power the realities of the consequences to believers is most horrible. Paul and John and other apostles refuted and condemned heresy and apostasy in no uncertain terms but never did they recommend or condone killing them.


----------



## TimV (Oct 28, 2009)

Why the comparison with Muslim States? What about here in the US a hundred years ago and the laws against blasphemy and filthy language? What harm did that cause? Surely you don't mean all speech should be free? Can you scream fire in a crowded theater?


----------



## captivewill (Oct 28, 2009)

TimV said:


> Why the comparison with Muslim States? What about here in the US a hundred years ago and the laws against blasphemy and filthy language? What harm did that cause? Surely you don't mean all speech should be free? Can you scream fire in a crowded theater?


Of course one should not cry fire unless there is indeed a fire. But do we kill people who do ?
But opinions about free speech are quite seperate from the teachings of scripture. The scriptures do not teach or commission the church to kill heretics or even apostates.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 28, 2009)

I will beat this horse just once more in this thread: the church did not kill Michael Servetus. He was punished _by_ the state, in accordance with the laws of the state. End of story.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 28, 2009)

captivewill said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > Why the comparison with Muslim States? What about here in the US a hundred years ago and the laws against blasphemy and filthy language? What harm did that cause? Surely you don't mean all speech should be free? Can you scream fire in a crowded theater?
> ...



Let someone get trampled by someone yelling fire in a crowded theater and see what happens.

CT


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 28, 2009)

Reformed Answers: Calvin and Servetus

A good summary of the event, plus final thoughts on the incident which mirror my own.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Oct 28, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Reformed Answers: Calvin and Servetus
> 
> A good summary of the event, plus final thoughts on the incident which mirror my own.



Sadly, this is the view of much of reformeddom. Enforcement of the Ten Commandments is reduced to only excommunication, or some unwarranted bifurcation of the Ten Commandments.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 28, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Reformed Answers: Calvin and Servetus





> Calvin went to his deathbed believing that the execution was just because Servetus was a blasphemer and a heretic – a murderer of souls. I stand with Calvin in believing that the state is charged to uphold the law of God, however, *I differ with him as to the best way that the state can do this*.



This is the weakness and arbitrariness of non-reformed views of civil government: they make the magistrate a master rather than a deacon and liturgos of God. The magistrate is to do God's bidding with the sword, not his own.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 28, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed Answers: Calvin and Servetus
> ...


----------



## MW (Oct 28, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Wouldn't that be the proper view of what general equity looks like in the NT Church?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is a little off target. It would be more correct to say "the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication" *in the Church*. Paul actually faced State trial and was charged for religious offences. For those offences he refused not to die, if he was guilty as charged.


----------



## VilnaGaon (Oct 28, 2009)

TimV said:


> Why the comparison with Muslim States? What about here in the US a hundred years ago and the laws against blasphemy and filthy language? What harm did that cause? Surely you don't mean all speech should be free? Can you scream fire in a crowded theater?



Does anyone on this board remember that when that blasphemous movie""The last temptation of Christ"" was released it was banned in most Muslim nations on account of its blasphemy. The Muslims got it right in that instance!


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 29, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Servetus was an incorrigible heretic, blasphemer of God and His ministers, and received a just punishment.



But if God would justly mark our iniquity, we should all be immediately dispatched.


----------



## TimV (Oct 29, 2009)

> But if God would justly mark our iniquity, we should all be immediately dispatched.



So

a: No sin should ever be punished
b: All sin should be punished with death
c: We look to the Bible to determine when and how to punish sin
d: We look to the State to determine when and how to punish sin
e: We demand sins be punished or not depending how we feel
f: We come up with some really complicated theory about punishing sin

Does that pretty much cover the options? ;-)


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 29, 2009)

I don't know.

But I am questioning the notion the death penalty for blasphemy is mandated for New Covenant states.

This should be in the theonomy section.

Death is always the just penalty for sin, as we learn from the Mosaic ceremonials and penology, as elsewhere in Scripture.

Whether modern states should inflict death for blasphemy as was prescribed under Moses, is another question.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 29, 2009)

*[Moderator]
Let's try to keep the conversation as closely related to the Servetus incident as possible. Historical explanations of doctrinal positions to help people understand the circumstances of Geneva are certainly fine and helpful; but let's try to avoid turning this thread into a debate over penology.
[/Moderator]*


----------



## MW (Oct 29, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> But I am questioning the notion the death penalty for blasphemy is mandated for New Covenant states.



I am wondering if the concept of the "new covenant" is the problem. It would give the law a gracious aspect in terms of its third use which it does not ordinarily possess as a keeper of public order. So far as social justice is concerned, Romans 1:32 specifically teaches that capital punishment for a range of crimes other than murder is just or "worthy of death." Hebrews 2:2 says much the same with respect to the OT judicials by referring to the penology as "a just recompense of reward." We should be careful to avoid making the civil magistrate a redemptive institution with a gracious aspect, even under the recognition of the establishment principle.


----------

