The Execution of Servetus for blasphemy, heresy and Obstinate AnaBaptism

TRUECOVENANTER ^ | Unknown | John Knox

[fortheDeclaration]

The true comfort of Calvinism, the whip, the sword and the stake.

[drstevej]

Servetus

[fortheDeclaration]

LOL!

[Support Free Republic]

"Please contribute to FreeRepublic and make these posts go away"
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered

[Alex Murphy]

Looks like the same old plotline being trotted out again. I'm going to make a run to the concession counter. You want anything?

[drstevej]

Roasted nuts seem appropriate!

[RochesterFan]

The true comfort of Calvinism, the whip, the sword and the stake.

This is beneath you, ftD,

[drstevej]

 

[Wrigley]

You give him too much credit.

[jude24]

The cheap shot is the last refuge of the losing debater.

Let's try an analog:

The year is 313 AD. Christianity would be legalized that same year. 50 years ago, Diocletian gave the fledgling church the worst persecution she had endured to date, and one yet to be paralleled. Bibles were outlawed on pain of death. Under the pressure, some cracked and handed over their contraband Bibles in hopes of alleviating the persecution. These quslings were known as "traditors," and many rejected them as Christians. Unfortunately, many were bishops.

In 311 AD, Caecilian is ordained the Bishop of Carthage. He himself was not a traditor, but the bishop that had appointed him was, and thus, he was considered tainted by a segment of the Carthaginian church. Accordingly, these dissidents ordained Donatus as their bishop, arguing that the purity of the church and church offices was at stake, and (since sacramentalism had already prevailed early on) thus, the efficacy of the sacraments was in question.

Augustine, following the line of argument proposed by Stephen, the bishop of Rome, argued that the sacraments were efficacious ex opere operato, that is, they were efficacious in and of themselves, and not dependant upon the moral status of the bishop.

Augustine, however, could not win this argument -- the Donatists would not submit to what he saw as clear and incontravertible logic and reason, so he convinced the Emperor to have the Roman army burn down the Donatist churches, and in 412, the emperor outlawed the Donatist beliefs and exiled them. Augustine's justification of this was from Lu. 14:23, the parable where the master tells his servants to, "Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that my house may be filled." Augustine saw here his mandate to use force to convert people and ensure doctrinal orthodoxy.

Now, in part due to our heritage of democracy, we understand this to be unscriptural -- that the Christian leadership model is not the sword, but the basin and the towel. But the question we must ask -- if Augustine, Calvin, whoever made a mistake like this-- does it automatically disqualify their theology? Was Augustine wrong when he debunked Pelagius' rejection of original sin? That has been the orthodox Christian doctrine, whether Calvinist, Arminian, or Catholic ever since Augustine. Do we automatically disqualify what he taught because he made a mistake, and believed force was a legitimate means of church discipline? I would think not.

This is known by debaters as a classic fallacy. Ad hominem attacks enflame the passions of an observer, and might pursuade the uncritical thinker, but they do not prove or disprove anything. All recounting the sagas of Augustine and the Dontatists or Calvin and Severtus can prove is that Augustine and Calvin were imperfect men -- something they themselves would have been the first to admit if asked. The execution of Severtus, scandalous though it might be (though Jean Chauvin has done a good job of putting forward a reasonable explanation of why it might not have been quite so egregious as one often hears), is ultimately irrelevant to the central question: is the will of man held inviolate, or does God work all things accordint to the counsel of His will.

FTD: I urge you to reconsider your tactics: you can be a better debater than this. Please try to do so.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Augustine saw here his mandate to use force to convert people and ensure doctrinal orthodoxy.

Rather, Augustine saw here a mandate to return wayward Catholics to the fold and uphold Canon Law and their lawful oaths.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

An ecumenical hertiage with the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.

[jude24]

I dont think canon law had evolved yet... that came around more in the Middle Ages, IIRC.

[P-Marlowe]

if Augustine, Calvin, whoever made a mistake like this-- does it automatically disqualify their theology?

No, not necessarily, but one would certainly have to question the wisdom of adopting the name of someone who would do such a thing as a description of your theology. To proudly claim that you are a "swarming Calvinist" in light of the fact that this man may have been guilty of the worst kind of blasphemy -- to have a man killed in the name of Christ for -- among other things-- having the gall to suggest that infant baptism is an invention of the devil. (Which, of course IT IS!).

Even if I subscribed to the doctrinal beliefs of Calvin, I certainly would never associate myself with the name of a man of somewhat questionable character, especially if that person went to his grave insisting that he had done nothing wrong.

Seems to me that if one follows the doctrines of Calvinism which teach that no man can possibly understand spiritual things unless he is an "elect", the fact that Calvin or Augustine or any of these theologians had a checkered history and engaged in what could arguably be called murder -- would, in my mind, seem to disqualify their theology. If by their actions and the fruit of their lives there is empirical evidence that they are not godly men, then how can we be assured that their theology is correct? You simply can't.

If you are a Calvinist and you believe that the reprobates cannot understand the first thing about spiritual things, then you would have to reject the teachings of Calvin if you believed him to be a reprobate.

Perhaps that explains the somewhat blind and apologetic (everybody did it back then) way in which Calvinists defend the objectively wicked actions of Calvin and the reformists in Geneva. If these men were reprobates, then the whole house of cards falls. So in essence the doctrines of Calvinism stand or fall on the character of Calvin himself. If he was not elect, then none of the theological conclusions he reached could possibly be considered valid -- unless he plagerized them from someone who actually was elect.

BTW it is not a "mistake" to have a man exterminated for disagreeing with your theology. It is a sin.

[P-Marlowe]

Sorry I forgot to ping you and pinged rev911 instead. You KJV onlyers get me confused. :-)

[RnMomof7]

This is beneath you, ftD,

Unfortunately it is not

[RnMomof7]

If you are a Calvinist and you believe that the reprobates cannot understand the first thing about spiritual things, then you would have to reject the teachings of Calvin if you believed him to be a reprobate.

Pathetic slander

[RnMomof7]

We have no wish to palliate any act of Calvin's which is manifestly wrong. All his proceedings, in relation to the unhappy affair of Servetus, we think, cannot be defended. Still it should be remembered that the true principles of religious toleration were very little understood in the time of Calvin. All the other reformers then living approved of Calvin's conduct. Even the gentle and amiable Melancthon expressed himself in relation to this affair, in the following manner. In a letter addressed to Bullinger, he says, "I have read your statement respecting the blasphemy of Servetus, and praise your piety and judgment; and am persuaded that the Council of Geneva has done right in putting to death this obstinate man, who would never have ceased his blasphemies. I am astonished that any one can be found to disapprove of this proceeding." Farel expressly says, that "Servetus deserved a capital punishment." Bucer did not hesitate to declare, that "Servetus deserved something worse than death."

The truth is, although Calvin had some hand in the arrest and imprisonment of Servetus, he was unwilling that he should be burnt at all. "I desire," says he, "that the severity of the punishment should be remitted." "We wndeavored to commute the kind of death, but in vain." "By wishing to mitigate the severity of the punishment," says Farel to Calvin, "you discharge the office of a friend towards your greatest enemy." "That Calvin was the instigator of the magistrates that Servetus might be burned," says Turritine, "historians neither anywhere affirm, nor does it appear from any considerations. Nay, it is certain, that he, with the college of pastors, dissuaded from that kind of punishment."




It has been often asserted, that Calvin possessed so much influence with the magistrates of Geneva that he might have obtained the release of Servetus, had he not been desirous of his destruction. This however, is not true. So far from it, that Calvin was himself once banished from Geneva, by these very magistrates, and often opposed their arbitrary measures in vain. So little desirous was Calvin of procuring the death of Servetus that he warned him of his danger, and suffered him to remain several weeks at Geneva, before he was arrested. But his language, which was then accounted blasphemous, was the cause of his imprisonment. When in prison, Calvin visited him, and used every argument to persuade him to retract his horrible blasphemies, without reference to his peculiar sentiments. This was the extent of Calvin's agency in this unhappy affair.

Foxes Book of Martyrs

[ahadams2]

As an Anglican I find neither Calvinist nor (by orders of magnitude) Anabaptist arguments entirely convincing (hey - we don't find *anyone* else's arguments entirely convincing that's why we're Anglicans!) I believe that it is entirely wrong to act as though one act of one person being burned for their beliefs was any worse than any other. As a cultural phenomena, and a sin to which all major parts of the Body of Christ (both Protestant and Catholic) fell prey, the execution of people by burning probably is the penultimate example. It wasn't nice, it wasn't pretty, and with a very few exceptions it wasn't even right, but the lack of forgiveness on the parts of those who still hold these things against one another half a millenium later is perhaps the greatest sin of all.