Replies

I don't know if he was a heretic. The evidence appears to have been burned up with the condemned.

The passages quoted give good grounds to question if he was indeed a heretic. He was accused of denying the Trinity, yet his arguments appear to be very similar to many involved in religious discussions, along the lines of,...well, gee, if so-and-so really believes that, then they obviously aren't worshipping the true God, but a false god, therefore I don't believe in 'your' god or your 'trinity' is a false trinity.

Perhaps he was a died in the wool heretic, but many apologetic arguments regarding the Divinity of Christ point to the manifest testimony of Christ on the cross,....that if Jesus Christ were false, then he would not have endured to the end. If Servetus were false and not Christian, then his final utterences devoting himself to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit through Christ would seem to bear testimony otherwise.

This rather obvious conclusion seems well noted by the silence of those in Geneva immediately after the execution, in great part by their embarassed forelorn silence.

BTW, Calvin wasn't just involved in one trial, but over a hundred, with over fifty of them resulting in a death sentance of the condemned. I don't witness as much concern by Calvin to warn his followers not to err and mistakenly judge the accused or not to place themselves before God when performing their judgment. I would think that a great part of his testimony would stress this point repeatedly to insure whatever judgment was reached was indeed just and holy.

An interesting historical feature to all of these enemies of Calvin is that they had communicated to Calvin in writing their disagreement with him. Some by means of writing notes in the margins of Calvin's notes on Scripture and some by referring him as a hypocrit tactfully to him directly.

Calvin's response seems much more characteristic of a person consumed by arrogance seeking vengeance for any attack on his personal belief rather than a theologian perseverent to his obedience to God.

Even if Calvin was well justified in believing his enemies were heretics, with his personal receipt of accusation, had he been perseverant in his obdeience to God's will over his own, he would have divorced himself from the accused status to avoid conflict of interest.

Surely after the first few prosecutions, Calvin would have acknowledged the temptations involved in such duties. He really must be a remarkable fellow to have endured such temptation for over a hundred prosecutions, even to the point of self-denial by allowing his juniors to be placed in prison for himself because of his poor health. My what a noble fellow Calvin must have been.

My real point here is that the the documented events seem to be very consistent with a fallen prosecutor, arrogant in his belief even to the point of those who attempted to point out his errors were manipulated into confinement and then slaughter or consumption close enough to the accusor's direct involvement as to raise doubt of the accusor's credibility. They are also consistent with how events may have played out if the accused had indeed been faithful to God and faced with such arrogance by their accusor.

IMHO, Calvin's actions and circumstances place doubt on his credibility.

The passages quoted give good grounds to question if he was indeed a heretic.

This article is nothing but truth-twisting venom of a bitter Calvin hater. If you want to be truthful, unlike the small-minded individual who wrote this piece, you will give direct evidence or quote reliable historians to back your case. Quoting the source P-Marlowe used in post #81 with footnotes included: (Wow, imagine that. using footnotes to back up your statements)

We do not know whether Servetus was aware of this state of things. But he could not have come at a time more favorable to him and more unfavorable to Calvin. Among the Libertines and Patriots, who hated the yoke of Calvin even more than the yoke of the pope, Servetus found natural supporters who, in turn, would gladly use him for political purposes. This fact emboldened him to take such a defiant attitude in the trial and to overwhelm Calvin with abuse. The final responsibility of the condemnation, therefore, rests with the Council of Geneva, which would probably have acted otherwise, if it had not been strongly influenced by the judgment of the Swiss Churches and the government of Bern. Calvin conducted the theological part of the examination of the trial, but had no direct influence upon the result. His theory was that the Church may convict and denounce the heretic theologically, but that his condemnation and punishment is the exclusive function of the State, and that it is one of its most sacred duties to punish attacks made on the Divine majesty. "From the time Servetus was convicted of his heresy," says Calvin, "I have not uttered a word about his punishment, as all honest men will bear witness; and I challenge even the malignant to deny it if they can."1171 One thing only he did: he expressed the wish for a mitigation of his punishment.1172

Now what have we learned from this short passage?

1. That there was a considerable faction within Geneva that opposed Calvin and in fact the libertines had members on the Council. Of course, this little fact is conveniently ignored by you in your attempt to paint Calvin as the supreme dictator of Geneva.

2. Calvin relinquished any authority for punishment to the State. Although he may have had some influence upon members of the Council he did not exercise as much influence as you would claim by the fact the Council refused his request for a lighter punishment for Servetus.

Now, will you begin to be honest in your postings and admit to the fact that Calvin did not have supreme dictatorial power in Geneva?

If Servetus were false and not Christian, then his final utterences devoting himself to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit through Christ would seem to bear testimony otherwise.

Again, quoting from the source Marlowe provided:

In the last moment he is heard to pray, in smoke and agony, with a loud voice: "Jesus Christ, thou Son of the eternal God, have mercy upon me!"1197 This was at once a confession of his faith and of his error. He could not be induced, says Farel, to confess that Christ was the eternal Son of God.

Is Jesus Christ Son of the Eternal God or the Eternal Son of God?