The attempted argument against Calvinism goes something like this, “Was the burning of Michael Servetus a justified, godly thing to do?” The person making this argument is usually trying to blame John Calvin as a person who single-handedly convicted, tied-up and lit the match that started the burning of Servetus. Then, the conclusion which is trying to be drawn is that Calvin wasn’t a Christian nor a godly man, therefore, none of his understanding of doctrine is valid. This is akin to Dave Hunt’s opening arguments in the second half of the book Debating Cavlinism where Hunt basic thesis is that Augustine and Calvin were not Christians to any of their understanding of doctrine is not valid. Most fair and educated Arminians see the flaw in this approach and would not poison the well in this manner.
It would be like me asking the “Arminian” who is making this argument if it was right that Gottschalk was condemned, whipped and imprisoned for his views on predestination? Or if it was right that John Huss was burned at the stake for his doctrinal beliefs? What I am getting at is that those who condemned these two men essentially held to doctrines more in line with the non-Calvinist. Same argument reversed; however, I have not seen a Calvinist make this argument towards the non-Calvinist or Arminian. So please, find a better argument to try and defeat the Calvinist positions.
Here are five points about Calvin and Servetus from a Banner of Truth article.
1. That Servetus was guilty of blasphemy, of a kind and degree which is still punishable here in England by imprisonment.
2. That his sentence was in accordance with the spirit of the age.
3. That he had been sentenced to the same punishment by the Inquisition at Vienne.
4. That the sentence was pronounced by the Councils of Geneva, Calvin having no power either to condemn or to save him.
5. That Calvin and others visited the unhappy man in his last hours, treated him with much kindness, and did all they could to have the sentence mitigated.
Get me out of this well….
Mark
in Arminianism,calvinism,Church Issues,theology
About the author
Mark is a Christian, husband and father. He is a businessman by day working to support his family while attending seminary in the off hours as he prepares for vocational ministry.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
This post has been removed by the author.
Compare the fate of Michael Servetus in Geneva to Vogelsangh in Amsterdam…
Vogelsangh was convicted of the same heresies as Servetus (denial of the Trinity, rejection of infant baptism). The role of Arminius in his trial was much like that of Calvin in the trial of Servetus – both approved and provided the theologial basis for the trial.
What was different was his punishment. The reason was the much more tolerant form of Calvinism in Amsterdam. He was banished from the city. In fact, his banishment eventually led to his repentance and reconciliation, something not possible in the case of Servetus due to him being dead. (See Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, pp 159-165)
It is a good question. Was it right to put Servetus to death?
Actually, you are shifting the argument. The position I was arguing against is not whether Servetus death was right or wrong, rather, that it’s a poor argument to use against Calvinism as it is poisoning the well. Also, to get rid of the inherent assertion that John Calvin was virtually acting alone. Now, we can talk about whether Servetus’ death was right or wrong, however, under their system of law it was right. Christians’ aren’t perfect and we’ve made many mistakes for sure.
jM
Firstly, jM, edit the main post to say “Calvinism” rather than clavinism.
Secondly… the question of whether it was right to execute Servetus is much like asking if it was right for the Israelites to kill Amalekites. The answer is, at the time, yes.
Servetus had escaped from a Roman Catholic prison and though arrested and warned many times to cease propagating his heresy, he continued to write, publish and distribute heretical material. Under the laws of the lands in which Servetus had been in, execution was the proscribed punishment for teaching heresy.
Remember, its not as if Servetus was a hermit somewhere muttering profane obscenities under his breath, he was actively preaching falsehood. Surely in the 21st Century that we live in, under the rule of the secular-humanist system of the US and other nations the punishment seems extreme, but Servetus was condemned to die in that Roman prison, and his only escape hastened his death though under a different theocracy. Such action would be akin to a government taking action against Jim Jones or other doomsday cults prior to their slaughter, it would have been just.
Simply put, the argument against Calvinism on the basis of Servetus’ execution is short-sighted, historically inaccurate, and devoid of theological content. It is the foremost of genetic fallacies used in attack against Calvinism. Though Calvin was the primary weapon against Servetus errors, his input into Servetus’ punishment was minimal, and even rejected by the government of Geneva.
The argument that attempts to contrast the Servetus account with that of Vogelsangh does not take into account Servetus’ previous warnings, arrests, and imprisonments as a repeat offender, nor the limitation of Calvin’s sway with the Genevan government at the time. Once again, its another empty argument attempting to deny the truth of Calvinism by attacking a proponent thereof. Genetic fallacy.
Sorry, not Genetic Fallacy (A Genetic Fallacy is a line of “reasoning” in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. )
But poisoning the well…
My comments on Servetus and Calvin usually don’t get through moderation, but here’s another try.
1. All the excuses for Calvin, including yours above, are based on moral relativism and the idea that one’s historical time excuses one’s actions. You cannot defend that idea from the bible. You know it. You know that Calvin had access to the teachings of Jesus which forbid the cruelty inflicted on Servetus.
2. The problem with Calvin is that beliefs produce fruit and Calvin’s fruit was evil, especially in regards to his personal pride and acts of revenge and cruelty to people who disagreed with him. There are a number of denominations going back to the time of Calvinism without a bloody history of repression. We must ask ourselves why Calvinism bore cruel and bloody fruit starting with its founder, and other strains of Christian belief did not.
You are entitled to your beliefs, but your justification of a murder is dangerous to me personally, because if you do not believe that it is wrong to kill a person because they don’t believe as you do, then I am not safe.