Why are you pinging me here? You know you often accuse me of "playing to the Jury" but this little screed by OP is essentially nonsense (accusing Arminius of advocating murder) and nothing more than a silly attempt to " play to the jury", only in this case the jury seems to be absent.
Let us remember that Calvin stated that he was responsible for the "extermination of Michael Servetus". He even wrote an apologetic for the execution of heretics. Arminius' postion as stated by OP merely recognizes that the power granted to the State is ordained of God and the ruler (no matter how much of a despot he is) is instrument of God's judgement.
Now while that teaching is clearly consistent with Romans 13, there is a problem that both Arminius and Calvin both shared. They saw the State as an instrument for cleansing and purifying the church, and failed to recognize that the State is almost universally an instrument of corruption and greed by those who seek temporal power.
Utilizing Calvin and Arminius' views and reverting them back to the first 3 Centuries after Christ, the persecution of the early Christians is at least as equally justified under this premise as the burning of Michael Servetus. Since the Christian Church was in essence in active rebellion against the power of the State, it can be argued that the Christian Church itself was in a similar state of Apostacy and heresy and insurrection as Servetus was when he fell into the hands of Calvin and his City Government. So by that reasoning the persecution of the Church by the Ceasers was nothing less than God himself ridding the Christian Church of evildoers, heretics and insurrectionists.
IMHO both Arminius and Calvin were corrupted by the power that flowed from the illicit and adulterous marriage between the Church and the State. The Church (the true church) is the bride of Christ. The false Church is the bride of the power of the State.
Well stated.
Lies.
You are attempting to under-represent Arminius' position in order to exempt him from the argument you so love to use against Calvin. But your duplicitous little dodge won't hack it.
Acknowledge that Arminius specifically stated that the Magistrate was to Legislate and enforce by the Sword obedience to all Ten Commandments as a matter of State Policy, and I'll retract the charge that you under-state Arminius' position for your own advantage.
Otherwise, I've called your little "screed" exactly what it is -- Lies.
Only if you consider nascent Christianity and Unitarianism morally equivalent.
I reiterate what I said on the Severtus thread: we see Calvin's actions as repugnant, not because they are morally wrong, but because they are contrary to the ideals of our tolerant, democratic society. But the Law makes one thing clear: In God's eyes, heresy was a crime punishable by death in the Israelite theocracy. Now, what God considered moral in the Israelite theocracy cannot now be postively immoral now. Geneva's duly elected officials decided that there was a compelling state interest in protecting orthodox Christian doctrine, and thus the law said that Severtus deserved to die. Severtus was not caught off-guard by this law; indeed, he flouted it. Accordingly, he justly must have been punished according to the letter of the law.