I believe we are working from the premise that Calvin executed Servetus.
I am also saying that even secular authorities will be judged by the morality of the judgments they carry out. Just because the government sanctions a particular execution does not mean that those responsible for bringing the charges, the witnesses against the accused, the Jury, or the executioner will be absolved of MORAL responsibility.
I assume most of your message was directed to Ag. Calvinist
but I agree with the gravamen of your argument (if I
understand it). The words "relative', "sin", "morality",
etc., have to be more precisely defined if we are to under-
stand what we are saying to each other.I think - as do all
historians, philosophers of history, and most theologians
that there IS such a phenomenon as HISTORICAL relativism.
This can easily be confused with MORAL relativism even
though the two are NOT synonymous. Philosophers of history
from the classical period up to Toynbee and R.G. Collingwood have adduced from the data of history that
"morality" (in either the relative or absolute sense)
would fall within the broader penumbra of "history"
and must be evaluated and defined within that context.
These philosophers of history are historians but MORE
than just that -- they search for the laws and principles
that determine the rise and fall of civilizations.
In other words (I'm forced to oversimplify!) the "morality"
of Calvin when he had Servetus burned 1n 1553 was an act
that Calvin saw as necessary to further the cause of
righteousness and advance the Divine Will by following
the divine imperative to crush and extirpate heresy and
blasphemy. The "heretic" was dangerous because he jeopardized the SOULS AND SALVATION OF OTHERS by spreading
his damnable beliefs to them. This is why, during the
Spanish Inquisition, the burning of a heretic was called
"auto de fe" - act of faith. You furthered true religion
by saving others from damnation. As I suggested, this is
a great oversimplification but one has to try. Let me
say to all the others with whom I've corresponded, that
I think its been a great and interesting dialogue! Thanks,
P.S. A moral absolute can exist within historical
relativity.