Heretic Burning!!

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Here are a few questions

In a society where the vast majority is Christian and there are but I very small, but adament, group of heretics who shall not recant but have become a cancer is lethal force ever justifiable?

Do we or do we not even try to justify the actions of the early Protestants when it comes to the burning of Catholics etc...

There is something so final about execution that it can not be called restorative.

 

[satz]

i dunno...seems a tricky question...

I don't think anything in the new testament gives us encouragement to burn heretics or unbelievers.

In 1 Cor 5 Paul says we judge those in the church and not those outside. Even against heretics within the church or unbelievers outside, the new testament directive seems to be actions such as seperation, withdrawing, efforts to restore them, etc...

Whether or not heretics DESERVE to be put to death is another issue, but i don't think new testament christians are to take active actions to achieve that end.

As to a society of mainly christians well... this is only my opinion and i am open to correction, but i think that is really just a hypothetical point. I think the tone of the NT is that christians will pretty much always be in the minority in society, living under ungodly rulers. We are to make the best we can of the situation, and try to change what we can, but i don't think we will ever see a situation where God's rules = society's rules.

just my thoughts

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

I was thinking during the Reformation there were times, such as in Geneva and in the New World, where communities developed which were set on Christian values, and ruled by Christians. Many of the citizens were 'Christian' at least only in name as best as we can tell. Would a heretic in this case, which I believe happened, be justifiably executed?

Would they be executed because they are a heretic or because they are being a disturbance to the peace and refusing to shut up, leading society astray and leading others to break the godly law? I am reminded of Romans 13. I am thinking the Church has not been given the power to use lethal force but the government certainly has.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih
I am thinking the Church has not been given the power to use lethal force but the government certainly has.

Exactly.

The church has been given the keys of the kingdom. As Paul says in Ephesians 6:10-13:

10Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[c] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

The government has been given the sword. Read Romans 13, and you will see that they perform an entirely different duty to society. This does NOT include punishing heretics...this is left to the church. The government is to keep the peace, the church is to keep the Word.

 

[LadyFlynt]

heretic burning...sounds like theocracy run amuck?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

This issue does raise the distinction between civil and ecclesiastical authority and they are rightly divided. However, the historic Reformed view is that magistrates do have authority concerning the external temporal matters which relate to the spiritual well-being of society. This is because as Calvin notes (Institutes, Book IV, Chap. 20, sec. 9) the promotion of piety is the most important duty of magistrates. The Westminster Confession (1646 and 1789) both affirm the maintenance of piety to be the first duty of magistrates. Magistrates clearly have a duty to uphold the first as well as the second table of the Decalogue. Thus, heresy and idolatry fall within the purview of the magistrate's sword in matters external (ie., the publication of heretical works, the promulgation of idolatrous practices, etc.). That being the case, the punishments available to a godly magistrate for blatant heretical or idolatrous conduct range from banishment to death, as we see in the practice of the New England Puritans or the Geneva Council.

The image of Servetus burning typically conjures up associations with the Inquisition or the Taliban. However, those comparisons are unjust and unhistorical. In a godly society, violations of the Ten Commandments must be punished. The severity of such punishments is a matter of discretion but the necessity of punishment is not.

Westminster Confession (1646), Chap. XX

IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.(p) And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or, to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church,(q) and by the power of the civil magistrate.(r)

(p) Matt. 12:25; I Pet. 2:13, 14, 16; Rom. 13:1 to 8; Heb. 13:17.
(q) Rom. 1:32 with I Cor. 5:1, 5, 11, 13; II John ver. 10, 11, and II Thess. 3:14, and I Tim. 6:3, 4, 5, and Tit. 1:10, 11, 13, and Tit. 3:10 with Matt. 18:15, 16, 17; I Tim. 1:19, 20; Rev. 2:2, 14, 15, 20; Rev. 3:9.
(r) Deut. 13:6 to 12; Rom. 13:3, 4 with II John ver. 10, 11; Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28; Rev. 17:12, 16, 17; Neh. 13:15, 17, 21, 22, 25, 30; II Kings 23:5, 6, 9, 20, 21; II Chron. 34:33; II Chron. 15:12, 13, 16; Dan. 3:29; I Tim. 2:2; Isa. 49:23; Zech. 13:2, 3.

Chap. XXIII

II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto;(b) in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;(c) so for that end, they may lawfully now, under the New Testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.(d)

(b) Prov. 8:15, 16; Rom. 13:1, 2, 4.
(c) Ps. 2:10, 11, 12; I Tim. 2:2; Ps. 82:3, 4; II Sam. 23:3; I Pet. 2:13.
(d) Luke 3:14; Rom. 13:4; Matt. 8:9, 10; Acts 10:1, 2; Rev. 17:14, 16.

III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: (e) yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be. preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.(f) For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.(g)

(e) II Chron. 26:18 with Matt. 18:17 and Matt. 16:19; I Cor. 12:28, 29; Eph. 4:11, 12; I Cor. 4:1, 2; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4.
(f) Isa. 49:23; Ps. 122:9; Ezra 7:23, 25, 26, 27, 28; Lev. 24:16; Deut. 13:5, 6, 12; I Kings 18:4; I Chron. 13:1 to 9; II Kings 23:1 to 26; II Chron. 34:33; II Chron. 15:12, 13.
(g) II Chron. 19:8, 9, 10, 11; II Chron. 29 and 30; Matt. 2:4, 5.

[Edited on 6-7-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Scott]

Fraser: It is never right for private individuals to use force to suppress heresy. That is a form of vigilantism. The use of the sword is limited to the government.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Calvin's Church was a government, wasn't it?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Calvin's Church was a government, wasn't it?

There is a difference between Calvin's Church Consistory (ecclesiastical authority) and the Geneva Council (civil authority, which made the decisions regarding Servetus' execution).

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Originally posted by Scott
Fraser: It is never right for private individuals to use force to suppress heresy. That is a form of vigilantism. The use of the sword is limited to the government.

I did not think I brought across the idea of such a thing. I am refering to heresy being punishable by the 'proper authorities', if these do indeed exist.

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

I was going to use the example of Servetus in my first post but was in a hurry and forgot how to spell his name.

Was it a sin for him to be executed? You could argue he was executed by a legitimate government who had the right of the sword BUT was it a just execution?

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Would it be fair to say that the civil government, no matter how 'godly', does not have the authority to investigate theological matters and so can not do 'anything' about heretics on the grounds soley they are heretics? Does this argument in the end work? A civil magistrate surely would be able biblicaly at least (without sinning) rule against the building of idols etc... so why cant they rule against the preaching of foul heresy. Once you accept they can rule against such heresy being taught then it is only practicle that they can inforce this ruling with some level of force.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I had to:

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih
I was going to use the example of Servetus in my first post but was in a hurry and forgot how to spell his name.

Was it a sin for him to be executed? You could argue he was executed by a legitimate government who had the right of the sword BUT was it a just execution?

I believe the execution of Servetus was just, as did Calvin. The historical record and principles involved have been discussed previously here, here and here.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by webmaster
I had to:

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Thank you for the links to the other discussions. Their titles did not so much so I didnt find them.

I have seen that cartoon before Infact it was what got me thinking about this... oh and the fact a friend said Foxes Book of Martyrs is bad because it doesnt tell of all the Catholics who were killed by the Protestants.

 

[LadyFlynt]

another good one is Martyrs' Mirror. It'll tell you about radicals that were killed. The mennonites hold this book in esteem right after the Scriptures.

 

[rmwilliamsjr]

I'm curious that in these threads i didn't see the real reason that Servetus was executed.
He was executed for treason. It is that the glue that held society together then was theology, anti-trinitarianism struck right at the center of that theological consensus. He, Servetus, denied the value and important of the essential principles that composed Christendom.

And need i remind anyone that we still execute traitors for treason.
i compare the execution of Servetus to the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti in Boston in my paper at: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson15_essay.html
here's my conclusion there

What Calvin did was to prosecute treason, the same as the US did with the Roseburg's. Even more to the point, the trial of Saco and Venzetti in the 1920's offers us a glimpse into the same process in our own society. We human beings guard the essential elements of our societies with extraordinary passion, for the impulse to disorder and the breakdown of society is so feared. Often I have read Chinese history that reflects that the Chinese will do almost anything to avoid anarchy and civil unrest, and often do terrible things in the name of order and stability. Those times of disorder occur frequently anyhow and cause so much pain and suffering that these periods become the next great evil to avoid at all costs. It was this boundary of Christendom that Calvin was defending at all costs, not the visible church boundary, but he like almost all the people of his age mistook the two. It was the hated Anabaptists that intuitively recognized that the Constantinian synthesis had bequeathed us a chimera that was better off dead than resurrected in the magisterial Reformation. They saw this clearly for the reasons that they, in general, did not see the continuities of the Testaments that the Reformers did. They saw only the New Testament Church without the exegetical and historical baggage from an association with the Old Testament Israel; from this exegetical error they did see the intertwining of the state and church as a great evil. It was several hundred years later in the American experience of church disestablishment because of pragmatic reasons that the children of Calvin stumbled onto the same question but answered it pragmatically rather than the principled way the Anabaptists started in the early 16th century.



The issue is one of boundaries and how we cross them: voluntarily as individuals or corporately hence involuntarily. We do not choose our parents, covenant children are in church involuntarily, brought there by the faithfulness of their parents. God promises to reward faithfulness but He obviously doesn´t always convert covenant children, but gives us the hope that this is His Will. This is the reason the Anabaptists did not want to deal with a category of people in the Church but not voluntarily of the Church. Individuality and the loss of corporate thinking is still 200 years in the future for Calvin´s successors in the French Enlightenment, so people in his day set the scale of individual----corporate far more to the community end then to we, the bearers of both Enlightenment and Reformation cultural values. But it is this essential voluntariness of Church membership and by right that boundary between the world and the church, that the Anabaptists fought for and that we now believe contra Calvin. For today we believe much closer to the Anabaptist believers church than that parish ideal that was part of the Corpus Christianum that almost all Europeans believed to be Biblical in the 16th century. Infant baptism is now crucially related to the faith of the parent´s, something not important in the 16th century, for being baptized yourself was the only requirement, confirmation or even taking communion was not required to present a child for baptism.

My final unanswered question is however, is our stand on not asking the magistrate to prosecute heresy a pragmatic or a principled stand?

 

[ChristianTrader]

I would say that it is neither pragmatic or principled, for one cannot be pragmatic without using the correct principles.

I really dont see how one soceity can prosecute murder and not prosecute heresy. In the former case you have a destroyer of the physical, while in the latter case you have a destroyer of the soul. And I think we all would agree that the latter is much worse.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The link between treason and heresy is a good point. The social order is built on all Ten Commandments, not just the last six. Blatant public violations of God's law overthrow the fabric of society. See how God's name is taken in vain and the Sabbath day desecrated. These immoralities too bring God's judgment upon nations. Likewise with blatant atheism or idolatry. These types of public sins are not abstractions. In addition to being heinous offenses in the sight of God and man, they directly lead to other vile sins as we see over and over in the Old Testament and in our own history. If God is Lord of the nations, magistrates are his ministers for good, and public assaults upon the law of God are assaults upon his ordinance of magistracy which cannot be tolerated. Not every sin is a crime, but public sins are crimes against God and man.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Here are a few questions

In a society where the vast majority is Christian and there are but I very small, but adament, group of heretics who shall not recant but have become a cancer is lethal force ever justifiable?

Do we or do we not even try to justify the actions of the early Protestants when it comes to the burning of Catholics etc...

There is something so final about execution that it can not be called restorative.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I whole-heartedly disagree with any who seriously suggest burning or torturing people for "heresy" or "atheism"... The Spirit of Christ does not compel such behavior; we should leave the judgment up to God... We should reach out to unbelievers and mockers even in the spirit of 2 Timothy 2:24-25. God works in the hearts of men. Men cannot be compelled by legislation or law to be Christians... Though, upholding Christian morality and God's standards like the Ten Commandments is requisite for the continuity of free civil society. Most of the Ten Commandments are at the very core of the Anglo-American common law tradition. Punishment by ecclesiastical authorities should never go beyond excommunication... I think the teachings of the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ fully substantiate this. I have no qualms about saying that historically Catholic punishments (and the severity of them) far exceeded any of those contrived by Protestants. I don't purport Protestants are perfect people who did no wrong, but Foxe's Book of the Martyrs tells the story of so many who suffered for defending Sola Fide and the truth of the Gospel.

I think the six-point Calvinist joke with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek is funny. I wouldn't share it with many non-Calvinist associates of mine, because it only gives them ammunition and reason to criticise. People that are too uptight about such humor, however, ought to take it easy In my humble opinion.


[Edited on 6-9-2005 by Puritanhead]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! I whole-heartedly disagree with any who seriously suggest burning or torturing people for "heresy" or "atheism"... The Spirit of Christ does not compel such behavior; we should leave the judgment up to God... We should reach out to unbelievers and mockers even in the spirit of 2 Timothy 2:24-25. God works in the hearts of men. Men cannot be compelled by legislation or law to be Christians... Though, upholding Christian morality and God's standards like the Ten Commandments is requisite for the continuity of free civil society. Most of the Ten Commandments are at the very core of the Anglo-American common law tradition. Punishment by ecclesiastical authorities should never go beyond excommunication... I think the teachings of the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ fully substantiate this. I have no qualms about saying that historically Catholic punishments (and the severity of them) far exceeded any of those contrived by Protestants. I don't purport Protestants are perfect people who did no wrong, but Foxe's Book of the Martyrs tells the story of so many who suffered for defending Sola Fide and

Just to clarify a few things...Nobody on this thread has ever suggested that ecclesiastical authorities have civil powers to execute anyone. Nor has anyone suggested that civil authority should be used to compel people to become Christians.

The magistrate does have a duty however to compel good public conduct.

As you rightly point out, the Ten Commandments should be enforced by the magistrate. NOTE: ALL TEN COMMANDMENTS.

This is because all ten commandments when broken in a public way lead to the breakdown of social order. Publication of heretical, idolatrous, atheistical literature or open like practices, including blasphemy and Sabbath desecration is sinful and because it is contrary to the public weal it cannot be tolerated by the magistrate in the name of freedom of conscience. The Old Testament is replete with examples of kings who did their honorable duty by pulling down monuments to idolatry and the sad effects of toleration of idolatry.

The Westminster Larger Catechism forbids toleration of idolatry (Q. 109) and requires "according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry" (Q. 108). It also requires that the church be "countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate" (Q. 191). As I said earlier, Calvin and the Westminster Confession rightly point out that the promotion of "piety" is the first duty of magistrates. They are ministers for good and do not bear the sword against evil in vain.

Civil and ecclesiastical authority is distinct but not unrelated. The enforcement of all ten commandments with respect to external temporal public displays is definitely a civil matter. The Puritans outlawed Christmas and other Papist practices and observances on these grounds and rightly so. They banished or punished Quakers, Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams for their promotion of false religious views and rightly so. The Westminster Confession (1646) specifically states that both civil and ecclesiastical powers may deal with the publication of literature that promotes principles contrary to the Christian religion and rightly so.

The appropriate punishments for violations of the first table of the Decalogue may vary from place to place and time to time, but the principle stands because the moral law of God binds everyone today, including civil magistrates. Crimes against the first table are arguably more heinous than crimes against the second because they lead to the destruction of the soul rather than the body or property, but in any case, the magistrate would be failing in his God-given duty if he allowed open idolatry in his realm to the destruction of the spiritual well-being of his people.

I agree that there is a noticeable historical distinction between Catholic and Protestant punishments for crimes against "heresy." That is why I said earlier that comparisons between Protestant examples like Calvin's Geneva and the Taliban or Inquisition were unhistorical and unjust. In covenanted Protestant lands where God's law is enforced it is typically because the Spirit of God wherein is liberty has worked a reformation in the hearts of the people. Popery in contrast is based on tyranny. The resulting examples of civil magistracy show the contrast between the freedom found in obedience to God's law by magistrates and nations versus the injustice when tyrants enforce their agenda in the name of God's law. There is a vast difference between the two.