Dr. Dobson: 'We Won’t Be Silenced'

Citizenlink.com ^ | 11-25-2008 | James C. Dobson, Ph.D.

[P-Marlowe]

Tell us, do you get your knowledge of history from Jack Chick tracts?

Is that the best you can do?

[slnk_rules]

I have laid low on most of this one. I am somewhat irritated with Philip here, in that I think he is trolling for an argument.

No one I know of says Calvin was right here. That is NOT the same as idiotically accusing him of being a bloody tyrant. The idea of the church being separate from the state was novel, and it is silly to accuse Calvin of not being born 200 years after he was.

The bible is largely silent on the "correct" formulation of a state for those in the New Testament. I have read the arguments by Rushdoony and Bahnsen (RIP) for a theonomic state. While some points are valid, I don't buy them. HOWEVER, the idea that the state is to enforce the 10 words (including what is called the "first table") was a commonly held viewpoint of the day. To act with feigned horror that someone would not take a position of John Locke, when Locke was born over a century later, is idiocy.

That is what I meant by Calvin being "a man of his time." The union of church and state was assumed to be the way it is, and theologians looked to the City of God as being expressed in its political and legal spheres in the city of men. Civil codes since Augustine reflected this ideal.

Do I then agree with the execution of Servetus? No. I think that the scripture is largely silent on the role of the state, save that it should be an "agent of wrath" to those who do evil. The nature and extent of that evil is not defined for us. I do believe the boundaries of restraint are to be wide, and should allow for heresy.

However, it is stupid cant and hypocritical moral posturing to argue that Calvin's failure (and I do believe it was a failure, as some of his contemporaries did) makes him some kind of bloody tyrant, delighting in using the sword to establish his own power.

Calvin had long correspondence with Servetus, who reminds me of some of the trolls on any bulletin board. He was hateful, insulting, blasphemous, and worst of all, he just did not know how to shut the hell up. Calvin quit answering him after a while, and Servetus continued to rant and send him tons of the most hateful and idiotic stuff. Calvin essentially said to a colleague that this kind of rant would be killed if he came to Geneva. He told Servetus this in a letter, warning him not to come there. So, the first thing he does is show up at one of Calvin's sermons, after taking a detour to Geneva to do so.

Does the brain dead obstreporous, idiotic, galling belligerent stupidity of Servetus EXCUSE Calvin? I don't think so. But neither is it reasonable to paint some imbecilic picture of Calvin chasing him with a flame thrower through the streets of Geneva.

It is interesting that Calvin met with him, prayed with and for him, and urged him to commit his soul to the God whom he had blasphemed. Calvin was NOT a hater of Servetus. He told him he did NOT hate him nor had any desire to persecute him. He stated that his opposition to him ("hard as iron") came from his fear of the damage Servetus's views would do to the church.

[P-Marlowe]

I have laid low on most of this one. I am somewhat irritated with Philip here, in that I think he is trolling for an argument. No one I know of says Calvin was right here. That is NOT the same as idiotically accusing him of being a bloody tyrant.

It was you who raised the idea that all men are tyrants and that you were longing for another Calvin. I simply pointed out that Calvin gave into his tyrannical nature in the Servetus matter.

The fact is that Servetus might have baited Calvin by showing up in Geneva, but had Servetus not shown up for Church on Sunday, he would have been in violation of Geneva law. The fact of the matter is that Servetus did not commit heresy or blasphemy within the jurisdiction of Geneva until after he had been accused and imprisoned. Had he not been forced to testify as a witness for the prosecution, he would not have uttered the blasphemy for which he was ultimately convicted.

Geneva had a very interesting judicial process in which a citizen could bring a bill of accusation against another person for blasphemy or heresy, but upon signing the bill of accusation both the accused and the accuser were imprisoned until the trial was completed. If the accused were acquitted, then the accuser would be executed. This limited greatly the number of blasphemy and heresy accusations.

Calvin drew up the bill of accusations but he had his scribe sign the document and his scribe was imprisoned during the pendency of the trial. Servetus would have been acquitted had he not been forced to act as a witness against himself because up until the time of the trial, Servetus had not uttered any blasphemous remarks within the jurisdiction of Geneva. It was only on cross examination by Calvin that he himself uttered the blasphemy for which he was convicted. If Geneva had the equivalent of a 5th amendment, Servetus would have been rightfully acquitted, and Calvin's loyal scribe would have been burned at the stake.

The whole trial was a duel between Calvin and Servetus. Calvin ultimately outwitted Servetus by forcing him under cross examination to utter a blasphemy. The fate of Calvin's scribe lay in the hands of Calvin's expertise in the art of cross examination, but the fact of the matter is that Servetus was actually not guilty of the crimes for which he was originally accused. Geneva had no jurisdiction over the statements that Servetus had made in correspondence to Calvin when Servetus was outside the jurisdiction of Geneva. Servetus had to utter a blasphemy within the jurisdiction of Geneva, which he did only on cross examination by Calvin.

The whole episode is fascinating. I think Servetus may have actually planned to get Calvin to actually "falsely" accuse him of Blasphemy and then get Calvin imprisoned and ultimately executed upon his acquittal, but Calvin didn't sign the bill of accusation. Servetus knew that Calvin hated him with every fiber of his being and I am sure the feeling was mutual. Calvin dodged a bullet by making a pre-mature accusation. He should have waited for Servetus to actually utter a blasphemy in the jurisdiction of Geneva before making the accusation, but in his zeal to eliminate this pest, Calvin almost got his scribe killed in the process.

Had Calvin resisted his own tyrannical nature, he could have avoided a lot of problems for both his own reputation and that of the Reformation.