Did Calvin kill Michael Servetus ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott Shahan

Scott Shahan

Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello everyone,

I was wondering, did Calvin have any regrets later in his life for his part in Servetus's death? And how big of a part did Calvin have in making sure that Servetus was put to death?
 
For the most comprehensive study in English check out [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Servetus-Calvin-Important-History-Reformation/dp/1430451882/ref=sr_1_3/104-7593328-1696760?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189142314&sr=8-3"]this book[/ame]. Transcripts of the trial and the surrounding situation is included.
 
crhoades said:
For the most comprehensive study in English check out this book. Transcripts of the trial and the surrounding situation is included.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris I will check out that book. I am interested in knowing more about this. What exactly do you think? How much of a part did Calvin have in killing Servetus?
 
What do you think of this?


Servetus came to Geneva in August 1553 and attended a Sunday church service with Calvin in the pulpit. He was recognized and arrested on Calvin's initiative.[citation needed] And, while Calvin also wrote the heresy charges, Geneva's city council did far more to steer Servetus' trial, sentence, and burning at the stake.[17][15] Calvin asked the council for a more humane execution – beheading instead of the stake – but his appeal was denied,[17] and the sentence carried out on 27 October 1553. Servetus was burned along with every available copy of his final work, De Trinitatis Erroribus, only three known copies of which survived – two in Calvin's own possession

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin
 
Chris,

I don't have the cash right now to get that book, I will pick it up later though. Do you know if any of the Puritans comment on Michael Servetus's death. Just wondering how other Puritans viewed Calvin's actions (or his part in the death of Servetus). Did anyone write anything about it?
 
Servetus was not only considered a heretic by the protestant church but by Rome as well (which sealed his death). Calvin lived in a time when there was no separation of church and state and therefore one of the worst crimes committed was heresy. Also, Calvin's relationship with the officials in Geneva was always strained to a degree which is why they did not submit to his request for a more humane execution. While I am not saying the Calvin was innocent, people need to look at the context of the world he lived in before we judge him according to our current context.
 
Scott,

I'm just curious. Given the brief details, why do you believe Calvin would feel personally guilty about Servetus death?

I know it seems archane to some minds but I do not believe there is anything unrighteous about public blasphemy being a capital offense. If the civil magistrate codifies a law to that effect and executes a man according to that law for its good to society then it is the magistrate using the sword to be a terror to evil.

Now, inevitably this might cause us to transpose the situation upon a pluralistic society and be concerned that a secularist would be setting the rules for what is blasphemy and who would be put to death for it.

But, in the case of Calvin, he did not kill the man. He had him duly arrested for a crime that was on the books and the magistrate put him to death according to their laws. In the case of a man spreading a false doctrine of the Trinity it would be hard for an orthodox Christian to argue that it was not blasphemy and the real question at that point would be whether or not it is inherently unrighteous to still punish blasphemy with death or even punish it at all (since even America has had blasphemy laws).

I know you want more details as to the circumstances but I'm just trying to interact on this issue a bit. I understand that the unbeliever will always use this as a reason to question the goodness of Calvin's character but, in my mind, I can't really find any fault in him over this episode.
 
:ditto:

In addition, I remember reading where Servetus knew very well about the laws in Geneva and he went and brought his false gospel anyway! What arrogance!
 
SemperFideles said:
Scott,

I'm just curious. Given the brief details, why do you believe Calvin would feel personally guilty about Servetus death?

I know it seems archane to some minds but I do not believe there is anything unrighteous about public blasphemy being a capital offense. If the civil magistrate codifies a law to that effect and executes a man according to that law for its good to society then it is the magistrate using the sword to be a terror to evil.

Now, inevitably this might cause us to transpose the situation upon a pluralistic society and be concerned that a secularist would be setting the rules for what is blasphemy and who would be put to death for it.

But, in the case of Calvin, he did not kill the man. He had him duly arrested for a crime that was on the books and the magistrate put him to death according to their laws. In the case of a man spreading a false doctrine of the Trinity it would be hard for an orthodox Christian to argue that it was not blasphemy and the real question at that point would be whether or not it is inherently unrighteous to still punish blasphemy with death or even punish it at all (since even America has had blasphemy laws).

I know you want more details as to the circumstances but I'm just trying to interact on this issue a bit. I understand that the unbeliever will always use this as a reason to question the goodness of Calvin's character but, in my mind, I can't really find any fault in him over this episode.
Click to expand...



I guess I never really looked at it that way before. It makes sense that if it is a civil law that is violated that the civil authorities have the power to exercise what is necessary punishment for the crime. If T.D Jakes was living then he would be a dead man. So Calvin would have looked at this as Capital punishment. And therefore it is not murder. So Calvin saw no wrong doing in these actions whatsoever? It just sounds kind of like the Crusades in a way... If you don't believe in the Christian life, and you oppose the Christian life we will put you to death. I suppose those that Saul also thought the same way when it came to putting Christians to death. In today's world or worldview these kind of actions seem unthinkable.
 
Samuel Rutherford (Free Disputation, 290):

...there can be no greater cruelty than for a Christian Magistrate to suffer bloody wolves to prey upon the flock, and false teachers to hunt souls, and destroy them. It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spiritual and diabolic cruelty to many thousand souls, whom he did pervert, and by his book, does yet lead into perdition.
Click to expand...
 
armourbearer said:
Samuel Rutherford (Free Disputation, 290):

...there can be no greater cruelty than for a Christian Magistrate to suffer bloody wolves to prey upon the flock, and false teachers to hunt souls, and destroy them. It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spiritual and diabolic cruelty to many thousand souls, whom he did pervert, and by his book, does yet lead into perdition.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE



Thanks for posting that.. I did want to see what other puritans had to say about that. thanks again.

Blessings
Click to expand...
 
armourbearer said:
Samuel Rutherford (Free Disputation, 290):

...there can be no greater cruelty than for a Christian Magistrate to suffer bloody wolves to prey upon the flock, and false teachers to hunt souls, and destroy them. It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spiritual and diabolic cruelty to many thousand souls, whom he did pervert, and by his book, does yet lead into perdition.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Great quote!
 
Spear Dane said:
armourbearer said:
Samuel Rutherford (Free Disputation, 290):

...there can be no greater cruelty than for a Christian Magistrate to suffer bloody wolves to prey upon the flock, and false teachers to hunt souls, and destroy them. It was justice, not cruelty, yea mercy to the Church of God, to take away the life of Servetus, who used such spiritual and diabolic cruelty to many thousand souls, whom he did pervert, and by his book, does yet lead into perdition.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Great quote!
Click to expand...

I completely agree. In eternal categories, which is a worse crime: to kill a man in cold blood or to make a man twice as fit for hell?
 
From Andrew's link, John Knox writing to defenders of Servetus

But now to the matter. I have before proved you malicious and venomous liars, and therefore unworthy to bear testimony against us. Now resteth to be proved, that ye are blasphemers of God, and persons defamed. Solomon affirmeth, "That he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the innocent, are alike abominable before God." [Prov. 17.] Which sentence is not to be understood of judges only, but is to be referred to every man; for of every one doth God require, that he hate, and in his heart and mouth condemn, that which God himself hath condemned; and also, that he allow and justify that which God pronounceth just, lawful, and holy. And if the contrary be found even in a multitude, God doth not only punish the chief offenders, but also upon their favorers, maintainers, and justifiers, doth he commonly pour the same plagues and vengeance. And hereof is that rare and fearful punishment taken upon Dathan and Abiram sufficient proof [Num. 16.]; for they joined with Corah were the authors of the conspiracy raised against Moses and Aaron. But did they alone sustain the vengeance? No; but their households, children, wives, tents, and substance in the same contained, did the earth in a moment devour and swallow up. And why? because they did justify the cause of those wicked, and insofar as in them lay, did maintain the same. No man, I trust, will deny, but that he who killeth an innocent man is a murderer, although it be under the cloak of justice. But that he who, having lawful authority to kill, and yet suffereth the murderer to live, is a murderer, in this perchance some men may doubt. But if the law of God be diligently searched, this doubt shall easily be resolved. For it will witness that no less ought the murderer, the blasphemer, and such other, to suffer the death, than that the meek and the fearer of God should be defended. And also, that such as maintain and defend the one, are no less criminal before God than those that oppress the others.

One example I will adduce for all. God gave into the hands of Ahab, Benhadad, king of Syria [1 Kings 20], who was great enemy to Israel; whom he upon certain conditions of amity sent home to his country. But what sentence was pronounced against Ahab? "Thus saith the Eternal, Because thou hast let go out of thy hands a man whom I appointed to die, thy soul (that is, thy life) shall be in the place of his life, and thy people in the place of his people." [verse 42.] Now to you justifiers of Servetus: Servetus was an abominable blasphemer against God; and you are justifiers of Servetus: therefore ye are blasphemers before God, like abominable as he was. The major I intend shortly to prove, so far as shall be sufficient at this time. The minor ye do not deny; for some by Apologies, some by books, and all by your tongues, do justify his cause. And the conclusion is infallibly gathered of the former words of the Holy Ghost.​

Talk about an opening statement!
 
Alister McGrath: It is not entirely clear why Servetus should have chosen to visit Geneva; possibly he had paused in the city on his way to seek refuge in Basle, as Calvin before him. He had already been condemned as a heretic by catholic authorities in France; he had, however, escaped from prison in Vienne, and made his way to Geneva, to be arrested on 13 August 1553. Alister E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 2000), pp. 118-119.

Alister McGrath: Although it was Calvin, acting as an individual, who arranged for Servetus’ accusation and arrest, it was the city council who—despite their intense hostility to Calvin—took over the case and prosecuted Servetus with vigour. (This caused some surprise to outside observers: Wolfgang Musculus wrote of his belief that Servetus evidently expected to benefit from the hostility of the city council towards Calvin.) It should be noted that Calvin’s role in these procedures was subsequently that of technical advisor or expert witness, rather than as prosecutor. On 21 August the Genevan authorities wrote to Vienne, asking for further information concerning their captive. In particular, they requested ‘duplicates of the evidence, information and arrest warrant’ against Servetus. The catholic authorities at Vienne immediately demanded the extradition of Servetus to face charges there. The city council then offered him a choice: he could either return to Vienne, or remain at Geneva and face the outcome of Genevan justice. It is significant that Servetus chose to remain at Geneva. Alister E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 2000), p. 119.

DTK
 
DTK said:
Alister McGrath: It is not entirely clear why Servetus should have chosen to visit Geneva; possibly he had paused in the city on his way to seek refuge in Basle, as Calvin before him. He had already been condemned as a heretic by catholic authorities in France; he had, however, escaped from prison in Vienne, and made his way to Geneva, to be arrested on 13 August 1553. Alister E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 2000), pp. 118-119.

Alister McGrath: Although it was Calvin, acting as an individual, who arranged for Servetus’ accusation and arrest, it was the city council who—despite their intense hostility to Calvin—took over the case and prosecuted Servetus with vigour. (This caused some surprise to outside observers: Wolfgang Musculus wrote of his belief that Servetus evidently expected to benefit from the hostility of the city council towards Calvin.) It should be noted that Calvin’s role in these procedures was subsequently that of technical advisor or expert witness, rather than as prosecutor. On 21 August the Genevan authorities wrote to Vienne, asking for further information concerning their captive. In particular, they requested ‘duplicates of the evidence, information and arrest warrant’ against Servetus. The catholic authorities at Vienne immediately demanded the extradition of Servetus to face charges there. The city council then offered him a choice: he could either return to Vienne, or remain at Geneva and face the outcome of Genevan justice. It is significant that Servetus chose to remain at Geneva. Alister E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 2000), p. 119.

DTK
Click to expand...

Fascinating!
 
In a time when 'heretics' were still being put to death, John Owen said...

“Heresy is a canker, but it is a spiritual one; let it be prevented by spiritual means: cutting off men’s heads is no proper remedy for it.”
 
Last edited:
I did find this tidbit in the biographical sketch found in the RHB copy of his Decades regarding Servetus.

Quote:
Bullinger wrote to Theodore Beza privately on August 30, 1553, saying, "But what is your most honourable senate of Geneva going to do with that blasphemous wretch Servetus? If they are wise, and do their duty, they will put him to death, that all the world may perceive that Geneva desires the glory of Christ to be maintained inviolate."

George Ella's interpretation is that Bullinger played a greater role in Servetus' death than did Calvin.

Let's see...Calvin...check. Knox...check. Beza...check. Bullinger...check Musculus...check. Bucer...check. Puritans...check. Wow, a reformed consensus that we no longer believe.
 
Don't believe we can take John Owen here as contradicting all the other divines of his time, just based on that brief statement.

In case of Servetus, we are not just taking about an ordinary run of the mill blasphemer and unbeliever. We are talking about one of their prophets, intend on subverting the church. Also do not believe John Owen would contradict the civil magistrate having a duty towards both the first and second table of the law. Although I believe he would state that the church would only fight with the spiritual sword.

And I believe that even our present day magistrate has a duty to both the first and second table of the law. But, for the most part, this is a moot point as most civil magistrates do not care a whit about God's law, and would sooner put the innocent (such as in abortion) or the righteous to death than the wicked.

Abortion is a crime in God's eyes. Putting to death the blasphemer by the civil magistrate is justice.
 
Let a hundred Servetuses die, the important thing to remember is that Calvin is NOT a theonomist. I find it very humurous that people will go to extreme lengths to demonstrate that while Calvin believed--even more so than Bahnsen--that said groups of people should be executed, his methodology for killing them was different. And that's supposed to be important.

For the guy with his head on the chopping block, do you think such reasoning will make a difference?
 
Israelite said:
Hi Scott.

i recommend these audios by a man named Nick Needham, he is well learned on church history and discusses the burning of servetus and Calvin's involvement.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...se&SpeakerOnly=true&keywordwithin=john+calvin

i think it is part 3 when they begin to discuss these things in the q & a session.
Click to expand...


Thanks I will listen to these over the weekend. I am discussing this issue with several people at the college and one thing that keeps being brought up is that Calvin didn't step in to prevent the execution. They argue that it is his sin of commission. They say to me that Calvin gave the nod to the civil authorities to go ahead and kill him. This is hard to argue that Calvin had some influence in this. The authorities knew that Calvin was on their side of the issue. I can't seem to argue that Calvin had no involvement in this when in fact he did. These anti-calvinists are quick to point out this episode. How many other heritics were killed and Calvin didn't do anything about it? When Saul became a Christian his killing of people stopped.
 
Scott Shahan said:
Thanks I will listen to these over the weekend. I am discussing this issue with several people at the college and one thing that keeps being brought up is that Calvin didn't step in to prevent the execution. They argue that it is his sin of commission. They say to me that Calvin gave the nod to the civil authorities to go ahead and kill him. This is hard to argue that Calvin had some influence in this. The authorities knew that Calvin was on their side of the issue. I can't seem to argue that Calvin had no involvement in this when in fact he did. These anti-calvinists are quick to point out this episode. How many other heritics were killed and Calvin didn't do anything about it? When Saul became a Christian his killing of people stopped.
Click to expand...

This just shows a lack of understanding of the society at that time. While Calvin and the church may have had a lot of influence, they could not alter a death sentence. Calvin did not run the government, nor was he a part of the government. In fact, Calvin couldn't even get the government to allow the church to partake of Communion every Sunday. How could he possibly have gotten them to overturn a death sentence even if he wanted to?
 
I have preferred to emphasize the fact that Servetus was a political revolutionary and stirred up trouble wherever he went. Calvin had packed his bags in the expectation that he' be thrown out by the libertine city council again. He was by no means the "dictator of Geneva". When he went to the council to recommend that they use a easier form of execution, they reminded him that he was not a Genevan citizen and had no right to vote or offer unasked-for advice.

Listen to Dr. Francis Nigel Lee's lecture "The Ethics of John Calvin" from SermonAudio. He gives a good defense of Calvin.
 
I've always been torn about this...some things I ponder:
1) Are not many regenerates former blasphemers? Would burning them alive have served their souls well?
2) I know that Paul spoke harshly about such, including them being emasculated; but I don't recall scriptural support for Christians putting to death blasphemers or being called to; whether it is civil law or not. We were all once blasphemers and believed false doctrine before we were saved. Does the grace extended to us not demand we extend to others? Is it not God who takes vengeance? I know I sound like a pacifist; I truly am not, but to justify burning alive someone for being what we once were - seems out of line with scripture. We don't stone our children for back-talking and disobedience anymore...etc.

Just some thoughts I thought I'd throw out there....
 
swilson said:
I've always been torn about this...some things I ponder:
1) Are not many regenerates former blasphemers? Would burning them alive have served their souls well?
2) I know that Paul spoke harshly about such, including them being emasculated; but I don't recall scriptural support for Christians putting to death blasphemers or being called to; whether it is civil law or not. We were all once blasphemers and believed false doctrine before we were saved. Does the grace extended to us not demand we extend to others? Is it not God who takes vengeance? I know I sound like a pacifist; I truly am not, but to justify burning alive someone for being what we once were - seems out of line with scripture. We don't stone our children for back-talking and disobedience anymore...etc.

Just some thoughts I thought I'd throw out there....
Click to expand...

Steve, I tend to agree with you. I don't think it is the Christian's individual responsibility to take vengeance or to impose a death sentence. However there are two very important points to remember:

1) Servetus violated a civil law (that had religious underpinnings). He knew the punishment of that violation before he ever entered Geneva.

2) Calvin had absolutely no power to alter the law, Servetus' breaking of it, or the sentence to be carried out. He was called in as a witness to Servetus' writings and teachings which were in violation of the published law and complied with the civil magistrate.

So, to claim that Servetus was "murdered" is not based on facts. He was executed for a capital crime. And to claim that Calvin killed him is not even remotely close to the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
John Calvin on the communication of properties and Servetus’ blasphemy
Replies
0
Views
1K
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
P
  • Locked
kill or excommunicate?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
Mr. Bultitude
  • Locked
Why did Calvin call Baruch a prophet?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
arapahoepark
  • Locked
Michael Bird
Replies
5
Views
5K
Jonathan David Foster
J
Kona Kuyperian
  • Locked
Slave owners, Calvin/Servetus, Luther/Anti-semite... How can we take these guys serious?
2 3
Replies
65
Views
11K
NaphtaliPress
NaphtaliPress
Back
Top