The Execution of Servetus for blasphemy, heresy and Obstinate AnaBaptism

TRUECOVENANTER ^ | Unknown | John Knox

[drstevej]

Well said.

[drstevej]

ping #19. Sound familiar?

[drstevej]

Pathetic slander

Pathetic Libel, actually.

[drstevej]

Here is a sampler of the intolerance of the era...

In need scarcely be said that Roman Catholicism had always taken an attitude of intolerance and persecution toward all dissenters from its creed. On the contrary, the principal leaders in the Reformation movement, Luther and Zwingli, in the first period of their reformatory labors, condemned Romish intolerance. They were in the earlier period defenders of the principle of liberty of conscience. Later they agreed to a thoroughgoing union of the church with the state, which meant the abandonment of the principle of religious liberty. Furthermore, the natural and inevitable consequence was the persecution of the Anabaptists by the established Protestant state churches.

It is a fact recognized by many recent historians that the persecution of the Anabaptists surpassed in severity the persecution of the early Christians by pagan Rome. Persecution began in Zurich soon after the Brethren had organized a congregation. Imprisonment of varying severity, sometimes in dark dungeons, was followed by executions. Felix Manz was the first martyr to die in Zurich, but at least two Brethren had been martyred earlier in other cantons of Switzerland by Roman Catholic governments. Within a short period the leaders of the Brethren lost their lives in the persecution. Among the early leaders of the evangelical Anabaptists who suffered martyrdom were Eberli Bolt, Johannes Krüsi, George Blaurock, Hans Lüdi, Hans Brötli, Thomas Herman, Eitelhans Langenmantel, Leonhard Schiemer, Hans Schlaffer, Hans Leopold Schneider, Wolfgang Uliman, Wolfgang Brandhuber, Georg Zaunring, Jerome Käls, Leonhard Seiler, Jacob Hutter, Offrus Griesinger.

Anabaptism was made a capital crime. Prices were set on the heads of Anabaptists. To give them food and shelter was a made a crime. In Roman Catholic states even those who recanted were often executed. Generally, however, those who abjured their faith were pardon except in Bavaria and, for a time, in Austria and also in the Netherlands. The duke of Bavaria, in 1527, gave orders that the imprisoned Anabaptists should be burned at the stake, unless they recanted, in which case they should be beheaded. King Ferdinand I of Austria issued a number of severe decrees against them, the first general mandate being dated August 28, 1527. In Catholic countries the Anabaptists, as a rule, were executed by burning at the stake, in Lutheran and Zwinglian states generally by beheading or drowning.

Emperor Charles V of Germany issued a general mandate against the Anabaptists on January 4, 1528, which was read from the pulpits of all cities, towns, and villages, decreeing that not only those who had received baptism but all parents who did not have their children baptized in good time were guilty of a criminal offense deserving death. Within a few years a number of imperial decrees followed. Not only were the Anabaptists to be executed by fire, but their dwellings also should be burned, unless they were located in towns or cities in which case they should be raced to the ground. In certain provinces their houses were not destroyed by confiscated. Speaking of northern Germany Menno Simons relates that in 1546 a small house of four rooms was confiscated because the owner had rented it to Menno and his family. In the Tyrol even the houses ion which an Anabaptist had been given temporary lodging were to be destroyed.

Thousands sealed their faith with their blood. When all efforts to half the movement proved vain, the authorities resorted to desperate measures. Armed executioners and mounted soldiers were sent in companies through the land to hunt down the Anabaptists and kill them on the spot without trial or sentence. The old method of pronouncing sentence on each individual dissenter proved inadequate to exterminate this faith.

http://www.anabaptists.org/writings/excerpts/meneu-1.html

[P-Marlowe]

"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."

Without so much as a "however" Foxe immediately rushes to defend the affair. Oh yeah sure, everybody did it back then. Poor excuse. Christ did not need to have powerful men burn heretics with green wood in order to protect his church from error. Christ was perfectly capable of preserving his church without burning people at the stake then and he is perfectly capable of preserving his church today. Seems to me that those who thought it necessary to kill heretics who taught such blasphemous things as that infant baptism was a waste of time had little faith in the ability of the Lord to protect his own church from false teachings.

How can we as modern day christians condemn the acts of the Taliban or the Ayatollahs when we refuse to condemn in no uncertain terms the evil that was done in the name of Christ by people like --yes -- people like John Calvin.

All of this apology for what is an empirically evil act, is unseemly. You don't grant the same slack to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. You judge them on their character. You point out their failings and you condemn them for their empirical sins. Yet Calvin is somehow off limits? Oh, he was just a product of his times. In contrast to others of his time he was a saint. Well the same could be said for Brigham Young and Joseph Smith.

[drstevej]

***In contrast to others of his time he was a saint. ***

I have never said this P-M, and you know that!

[P-Marlowe]

Here is a sampler of the intolerance of the era...

So what makes the Reformation Churches or the RCC any better than the Taliban? Did God approve of all this bloodshed?

Oh yeah, you calvinists think it was all God's doing, right? That it was actually God who made all these people commit all these horrible acts for his Glory? So I guess they didn't do anything wrong at all, since they were doing exactly what God wanted them to do? Sorry, I forgot.

[drstevej]

Addendum: I realize you are playing to the jury. I have explained to you privately my assessment and it is at variance with this criticism.

I'll be glad to debate the relative morality and personality quirks Calvin vs. Joseph Smith any day.

[drstevej]

***Did God approve of all this bloodshed?***

Of course not, and you know I do not think He does. You are again playing to the jury. Direct you comments to someone who actually believes the things you attribute to me. It will have more credibility that way.

[P-Marlowe]

I have never said this P-M, and you know that!

Then condemn the actions of Calvin in no uncertain terms. Quit making excuses for him. What he did was evil. Period. End of Argument. What the Church at Geneva did was evil. What the RCC did was evil. Anyone who participated in the execution of so-called heretics was performing an evil act, indeed a blasphemous act. Can you say that?

[P-Marlowe]

I'll be glad to debate the relative morality and personality quirks Calvin vs. Joseph Smith any day.

As far as I know Joe Smith never exterminated any heretics. The same may not be true of Brigham Young, but that's another debate.

[CARepubGal]

Umm Missouri ring a bell? Danites were Joseph's shock troops.

[drstevej]

***What he did was evil. Period. End of Argument. What the Church at Geneva did was evil. What the RCC did was evil. Anyone who participated in the execution of so-called heretics was performing an evil act, indeed a blasphemous act. Can you say that?***

Absolutely, I can and do so here.

All I ask is the historical facts be presented objectively and with some balance.

[P-Marlowe]

Of course not

Perhaps you can explain from a Calvinistic viewpoint how it is that anything that God does not approve of could possibly happen. I thought you guys believed that God not only permits evil, but that he has planned everything -- including all this heretic torching--to happen exactly as it does happen. If God did not approve of all of this heretic burning and witch burning that was being done in his name, then how on earth did it happen?

Is not God sovereign?

[drstevej]

***As far as I know Joe Smith never exterminated any heretics***

Nor did Calvin.

Calvin did not threaten his wife with eternal damnation if she objected to his plural wives and claim that God told him to tell her this. (JS did See D&C 132)

[drstevej]

Not playing your games, Marlowe.

[P-Marlowe]

Absolutely, I can and do so here.

Thank you.

Now, lets say for argument's sake that Calvin's propensity to have servetus executed for heresy was evidence that at the time he was engaged in this affair he was not yet saved. In light of the fact that you calvinists seem to believe that only a born again person can understand anything about spiritual matters, would not Calvin's teachings on issues of theology be suspect?

Can a man who is not born again possibly write a commentary on the Bible that would be doctrinally sound? Or would it have to be rejected since the author was incapable of understanding the things of God?

And since Augustine had this same propensity, can we trust anything that he wrote?

[drstevej]

***Now, lets say for argument's sake that Calvin's propensity to have servetus executed for heresy was evidence that at the time he was engaged in this affair he was not yet saved.***

Your premise is flawed. Game Over.

[P-Marlowe]

Nor did Calvin.

But Calvin admitted to it. Was Calvin a liar when he penned these words:

""Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels, who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

If Calvin says he exterminated Servetus, who are you to say he didn't?

[P-Marlowe]

Your premise is flawed. Game Over.

Why is my premise flawed? What evidence do you have that Calvin was actually saved? Only God knows his heart. What if he wasn't saved? Would that affect his ability to write a worthwile and doctrinally sound Commentary on the bible? Would that affect his ability to develop a sound systematic Theology?